1921-05-13

CANADA EVIDENCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 156, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
He said:	The purpose of the Bill is
to make a very slight amendment in the matter of procedure. It is to substitute a delay of seven days for the delay

presently fixed in the statute, of ten days, which must elapse between the production or communication of documents intended to be used upon a trial and the day of the trial itself. It is asked for by persons interested in the administration of justice, particularly in cases with regard to offences against morality, etc., the reason being simply this:	that there
cannot be a remand for more than eight days, and wherever documentary evidence is to be used-inasmuch as under the present law the documents have to be produced or communicated ten days before the trial-it is necessary to have a second remand. In other words, it is impossible to comply with the requirement of ten days in time to proceed at the end of the first remand. The substitution of " seven " for " ten " seems to operate no injustice to anybody; it is an ample delay, and makes it possible to proceed after the first remand.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 157, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
He said:	Three amendments are proposed by this Bill. The first is for the purpose of raising from sixteen to eighteen years the limit of the age at which a delinquent may be treated as a child and dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The House will remember that the other day we made similar amendments in the Prisons and Reformatories Act. The clause which makes this provision raising the age is suspended for the same reason for which the analogous clause was suspended in the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the provision is that it shall come into force accordingly as it is proclaimed in the different provinces. The reason is as I mentioned the other day:	it is
represented that the provinces are not presently prepared to deal with the situation that would be created by this increase in age; that their institutions are in large measure organized to deal with children only up to sixteen years of age, and it is not desirable that this change should go into practical operation until suitable arrangements have been made.
The second amendment is' to confer a power of postponement on the juvenile courts which apparently does not exist at the present time. This suggestion "was
made by a judge as the result of an inquiry which he was charged to make into the operations of these prosecutions, and it is thought that the proposed amendment will effect a very substantial improvement.
The third amendment is to increase the possible penalty of persons contributing to the delinquency of young children from one year to two years and likewise to make persons liable to that penalty without its being necessary to prove that they have actually succeeded in their attempt to contribute to the delinquency. This is effected by adding the words: "or likely to make any child a juvenile delinquent." This amendment follows upon a judgment recently entered in a case Where a very young child was brought together with an older girl child by a couple of men who indulged in an orgy in the presence of this child-a most degrading and certainly a most contaminating thing. But as it was not established that the men had had any relations of any kind with this young child, notwithstanding its having been present at this orgy, it was held that they should not be convicted as having contributed to make the young child a delinquent. The purpose of the additional words is to cover cases of attempts of that kind, even if they do not involve the perpetration of an actual offence which might be said to make a child absolutely a delinquent.
The fourth and final amendment is to provide a penalty for persons who attempt to induce children to desert from the persons or families in whose custody or charge they are placed under the Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 158, respecting a Supplementary Extradition Convention with the United States of America.
He said: This Bill has already been explained. It is a treaty for the purpose of adding, as between Canada and the United States, the offence of wife desertion to the extraditable offences.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved
[Stage Direction]
for leave to introduce Bill No. 159, to amend the Inspection and Sale Act (Hay and Straw inspection).
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
FROM THE SENATE-FIRST READINGS Bill No. 147, for the relief of John Wilson.-Mr. Pripp.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Albert Harding.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Thomas Furneaux.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Matthew John Scott.-Mr. Best.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Dora Lucy Bell.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Henry Kropp.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Arthur Daughton.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Annie Maud Bell.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Thomas Henry Foster.-Mr. Green.
PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres):: I should like to call the attention of the Government to a despatch which appeared in the press of yesterday, stating that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) was to go alone to the Imperial Conference in June; that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) was going to start for London on June 2 from New York on a private business trip, but that he would probably attend the conference. Is there any truth in the report that the Prime Minister is to go direct to the conference, and that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to go to it in a roundabout way?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: I do not really know whether the hon. gentleman expects an answer or whether he merely wanted to draw attention to the report.


Joseph Archambault: I should like to have an answer.


Arthur Meighen: I expect to attend the conference. No arrangement as yet has been made as regards any other minister. On the Orders of the Day:
BOARD OF TRADE REPORTS-BLANK FORMS IN FRENCH On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. A. M. DECHENE (Montmagny) :: Some little time ago I inquired from the 
Prime Minister if I could get a blank form in French for the report of the Montmagny Board of Trade. Some representatives of the Department of the Secretary of State came to my office and inquired what kind of blanks were required. I showed them the blank forms in English, and I asked them for blank forms in French. There is a heavy fine for delay in making the report required. The Prime Minister said the other day that he would make inquiries and let me know. Since then I have had no answer and I have not received any blank forms in French. I should like to know when we are going to get them.


Arthur Meighen: I remember the hon. member making the inquiry, and at the time I requested my secretary to see that the matter was looked after. I have not had a report yet, but I will promise the hon. gentleman to speak on the subject to-morrow.
On the Orders of the Day:



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: I should like to call the attention of the House to what I may call either a direct disobedience of the Orders of the House or a gross neglect on the part of the Government regarding Orders passed by the House. I would first call the attention of the Government to an Order passed on October 20, 1919, regarding the names of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk as they appeared on the books of the company on October 9, 1919. I called the attention of the House on November 10, 1919, to the order for this list, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) replied that the list was being prepared. On June 10 last, I again called the attention of the House to the matter, and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid^ told me that it would take seven or eight months to get the list. Those seven or eight months have now elapsed.' On June 26 last, I again called the attention of the Government to the matter, and I did not get the list. The list has not yet been filed or brought down. So much for the list of Grand Trunk 'shareholders.	.
On April 19, 1920, an Order was passed for a statement showing the number of farmers who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. On April 21, 1920, another Order was passed for a statement showing fines collected under the Inland Revenue Act for 1919 and amounts paid for collecting such fines. On April 26,

1920, another Order was passed for a statement showing the quantity of liquor imported into Canada by provinces since 1913. No returns have been made as regards these orders, although some of them are more than a year old. Is the Government still persisting in its desire to withhold information on these matters?


Arthur Meighen: As regards the first order, an order for the names of all the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway, that order was passed. There did not seem to be any reason that could be advanced why it should not be passed if it was the desire of the House to approve. But this just illustrates what may be done under the present rules. The Government has no means in the world of getting the names of those shareholders except by grace of the Grand Trunk Railway. We immediately set to work to get them, and since that time the Grand Trunk officials have been reminded time and time again that we desire those names. I do not know of any obligation they are under to give them to us, nor do I know of any way in which we can enforce the request. I am still more at a doss to understand what earthly good the information would be when it comes here. It will likely cost a very great deal of money and the cost will have to be borne by the country. All the Government can do is to request the information, and keep on requesting it, and that the Government has done. ,
As to the second, the return showing the number of farmers who enlisted, I presume that that requires going through the whole list of several hundred thousand of the men who enlisted, and possibly it involves inquiry as to different men as respects whom no occupation is given. I can quite conceive that months and months of work would be required for that, and I am again at a loss to understand what value the information will be when received, because many a man, though not a farmer on the day he enlisted, may have been one just a short time before that. Consequently, the information can be of no value. But the preparation of the statement called for will be of great expense, and necessarily means a matter of very great delay. I cannot give particulars as to just what progress has been made towards filling that order, but I have no doubt that every progress possible has been made.
As to the others, I do not know of any reason at the moment why they should not be down. I will make inquiry as to them. I do not recall attention having been called to them since the orders were passed.


Joseph Archambault: Of course, under the rules I am precluded at this stage from answering the arguments of the Prime Minister, but I would like to suggest that there be brought down the correspondence requesting the Grand Trunk management to make that list.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether there is anything to be brought down or not. I remember speaking to Mr. Bell, the Deputy Minister of Railways, who said that he had requested the list just a short time before I spoke to him, and was continuing to request it. Whether there were letters or not, I do not know.


Joseph Archambault: My right hon. friend just said that there were many written requests.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman knows that he is not within his rights in cross-examining at this stage.


Joseph Archambault: Steam rolling!



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton and Victoria) :: I should like to ask the Prime Minister what progress he is making in the negotiations with the Grand Trunk, and if there is any fair chance of getting through the session without any further legislation in connection with that matter.


Arthur Meighen: The Government received yesterday, through the High Commissioner for Canada, a notification that the Grand Trunk shareholders had authorized the directors to accept the terms fixed by this Parliament in the Bill already passed. ' Consequently, the next duty is to have the agreement which has been prepared, and, I think, in the main assented to-I am not very sure whether all the terms were approved or not-executed by the two parties. When that is done the agreement will be brought down, and, if it is desired, any subsequent correspondence that may have passed.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 12, the debate on the motion of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. S. Fielding.
Arthur Meighen: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


Arthur Meighen: We have not had an explanation in this debate, although it has lasted a week, and it is not that hon. gentlemen have not thought of the matter; it is not that they have not been reminded of it. Speaking in the Budget debate a year ago on this question, I asked them then why they did not move their tariff platform by way of amendment, instead of cutting off the main body and moving merely a section. But I was told that it would come later. I questioned hon. gentlemen angularly opposite, the Farmers' party, as to why they had not moved their platform a'll these years in amendment to the Budget or in amendment to the motion to go into Supply. After struggling hard to get a reason I succeeded in getting a promise from the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), who told me that they would move their platform all right, and asked me just to wait and be patient. Well, I have waited another year. We are nearly at the end of another session, but no Farmers' platform has yet been moved in the House. Has the

hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), abandoned the Farmers' platform of November 1918? If he has not abandoned it, why does he not seek the judgment of the House upon it? Why does he not espouse it in this Parliament by acts as well as words? Why does he not seek to put his colleagues and his semi-colleagues on record upon it? Why does he not let the people of the country know just how every member in this House stands as regards that platform? I hope I shall succeed in prodding him up to move it. I have tried long and often. I have been told year after year just to wait for the Budget and I should get their platform. I had one explanation, I think three years ago, from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). After an amendment to the Budget had been moved, he came forward in a dramatic manner into Parliament and moved something pretty close to the Farmers' platform. But he found, of course, that there could be only one amendment to the Budget, and so in tears he had to withdraw his motion, lamenting the fact that the rules of the House forbade him to move a second amendment. But what about all the years since? Why did he not at least once get up and move his amendment before some one else intervened? Surely his colleagues directly opposite me are not so discourteous to him-so discourteous that they insist on being the first every year for four years running- that he cannot get his amendment moved at all; and if they are why does he not move an amendment to Supply? We know that my hon. friends opposite have been struggling hard to find amendments to Supply. They have raked all the ash heaps and the garbage barrels of politics-; everything in the way of political shoddy you could think of has been moved in this House in amendment to Supply-everything except their platform. Last night I listened all the time t could to the Chief Whip of the Agrarian party. I heard him pronouncing what the party wanted and what they demanded to have. He said:	We demand
free food, we demand free cement, we demand free implements of production. The fact is that is precisely what they do not demand, although in their official platform they have been preaching it for four years. Where do we find free implements in this amendment? Where do we find free food in this amendment? Where do we find free cement? Where do we find a demand for a reduction of duties on boots and shoes in this amendment, where do we find any single 
thing that is in the Farmers' platform of November, 1918? But the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) says: We are in the same boat with hon. gentlemen of the official Opposition.
I would like to have been present when this amendment was being fixed up. I would like to have been around when the pruning, and the sandpapering, and the varnishing, were being applied to the verbiage in order to get the amendment in such shape that they could all get in on the vote.
I went through Western Canada last fall. On many platforms I informed the people there of the game the Farmer leaders-all incorrigible party men-were playing. The great number of the audiences were farmers, a great many of them were followers of my hon. friend the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), no doubt in the world about that. They know what they want out there, they know they want precisely what I said they wanted in the city of Sherbrooke in the speech criticised so severely by the the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). They know they want free trade and want it mighty soon; they know they want the Farmers' platform adopted and adopted right away. They were astonished at every meeting, and I was often questioned after I was through whether what I said was really correct-that not one of their representatives in this House had ever had the courage to move their platform here. Now what is the explanation?


Mr. EDWARDS:: Practical politics.


Arthur Meighen: Why, of course, practical politics,-a desire to get "in the same boat" with the official Opposition. For that reason they have made themselves a political annex to that party-servile tools and minions of the official Opposition, ready to do whatever they are bid to do. If these Farmer leaders take a stand on a certain question one day they are ready to ^change it the next day if the official Opposition say so-they have done that very thing this session. These leaders are the tools, I say, of the official Opposition-an adjunct, an annex, and a dilapidated annex at that. If the official Opposition say, "We do not want you to run a candidate here," there is no candidate run. If the official Opposition say, "We think we can run a candidate in that county better than you can because you dare not say anything against protection there, let us have that constituency, and you keep

out; our flag is better there than yours,"- in such a case as that the leaders of the Farmers' party obey. But if the official Opposition say, "We cannot get anywhere down in such-and-such a constituency"- for example, in York and Sunbury-"we cannot do a thing there for the life of us. They know us too well. Won't you run a candidate down in York and Sunbury?" Then of course the Farmers run a candidate, and it is the free trade flag and the Farmers' platform flag and the 3,918 platform that are used in York and Sunbury.


Mr. HALBERT:: What about North
York?


Arthur Meighen: Why North York is
represented in this House by an hon. member who does credit to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Come again.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want so to
disconcert hon. gentlemen that they lose their bearings altogether.


Robert Henry Halbert: What about putting
Burnaby in the field against the leader of the Opposition?


Arthur Meighen: There is plenty of time to fix that up yet. The hon. gentleman knows, of course, that the leader of the Opposition has been struggling hard to get that matter fixed up and I do not doubt myself that he will succeed. Perhaps, of course, the play will be continued for the sake of appearances. But what I say to hon. gentlemen opposite is this: Why not throw the mask away? Why not join right up? Am I to be told that I am anxious to keep these people divided? I was paid that compliment by the leader of the Opposition last session. "Oh," he said, "you would like to divide us. We are the forces of 'progress.' The farmers may be going one way and we moving the other, but we are all 'progressing'; you want to divide us." I do not want to divide them. I think if I did that is just what would unite them. Why do they not unite? I do not care whether they divide or unite if they will really and finally say where they stand and remain there. If they want to unite let them do so. Let them then throw away both platforms and frame one on which they can both stand and then remain on it; but do not let 'them say that one is still back on the 1918 platform and the other on the 1919 platform, when, as a matter of fact, each of them has in this House discarded them both.
Think of the 1919 platform. Do hon. gentlemen opposite remember that convention? Do they remember the solemn words of its tariff platform, a definite real commitment? Let me see-it is not two years old yet, it is a little over a year and a half old. There were eighteen articles that were to be free. It is true eleven of them were free when the resolution was passed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, but they did
not know that.


Arthur Meighen: They had to have
padding as well as substance so they said all these articles were to be free. Then there was to be a big reduction in the tariff all round. There was to be "reduction of the tariff whereby substantial reductions would be effected in the cost of wearing apparel and other articles of general consumption, other than luxuries, as well as on raw materials entering into the same." Then the British "preference was to be increased to 50 per cent. But here is the solemn affirmation with which the platform ends:
-"and the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power."
Pledges itself to implement that resolution when returned to power. Well, why do they not stand by it in between? Where has it gone? Why has it not been moved this session? Why was it not moved last session? Why was it not moved the session before? Why have they each session patched up something new? Now, if I do not get an answer to anything else, may I get an answer to that before this debate is over?


An hon. MEMBER:: You never will.


Arthur Meighen: That interjection comes from opposite, and the man who says it speaks the truth. I wonder if hon. gentlemen really think that there is any single human being in this country who does not understand the game they are trying to play? Does any hon. gentleman think that any one is so dull that he cannot see the whole process of hocus-pocusing that is going on? Does any one believe that the farmers of Western Canada, who felt that they were deceived in 1896 by promises that never were fulfilled, and who as a ponsequenee commenced the organization which to-day supports hon. gentlemen diagonally across the way,-does any one imagine that they do not understand what is doing at this time? Does any one think for a minute that they are going to be deceived by this amendment put up in



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
this debate, and by the running away from their platform on the part of hon. gentlemen of the Agrarian party in this House? They are not deceived. They who accepted a straight and direct pledge in 1893, and who know that that pledge was not carried out-and I for one say that the country was the gainer because it was not-they who accepted then a pledge that they could all understand, are not very likely to be deceived by this circuitous sinuosity that none of them can understand.
An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: Some one says "order." They know that in 1893 and 1896 they were not represented by any special party in this House; they know they are to-day; and I think they know that if that party has not the courage to put its pledge before Parliament while in opposition it is not likely to have the courage to put that pledge into effect if returned to power.
Now, let me speak for a moment-


Mr. RINFRET:: It is about time.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are getting
nailed up to the mast.


Arthur Meighen: We will have lots of
time, but I am afraid that time will not help my hon. friend. We have had already the assertion from a colleague very close beside the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) that we will not have any reasons why they abandoned his platform.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think we will.


Arthur Meighen: He differs from his party friend. There seems to be three divisions now. Well, to abandon a platform is bad enqugh, but to fail to furnish a reason for its abandonment is worse, and I will give credit to my hon. friend from St. James that he, at least, having abandoned his platform, is ready to give a reason for the apostasy.
Now, my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in a speech expounding the cause that he has consistently espoused in this House, but the incarnation of which in a platform even he has never dared to move, was received with cheers on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite me, although they knew that what they were going to vote for had not the remotest family connection with the cause which he was expounding, and that they themselves had no sympathy whatever with the opinions which he was expressing. The hon. member for Red Deer brought into the discussion some
4 p.m. incidents and figures to which I should like very briefly to re-

fer. I think it is a compliment to him that he is able to evoke applause even from those who differ from him. That is because of the peculiar talents for debate that he possesses. He referred to a speech I made on the Budget a year ago, a speech of which he had a very poor opinion at the time -and I had not any very good one myself, any one in office will find that his time cannot be very much devoted to preparation of speeches-but nothwithstanding his very poor opinion of that speech he has done me the compliment of answering it repeatedly for the past twelve months. The organs of my hon. friends have been answering it too. I remember one paper in particular, published in the city of Winnipeg, which did me the very great kindness of having a lengthy reply to that speech by a gentleman called Mr. Hull, and in the same issue a very long reply by a professor from Scotland-I forget his name at the moment-and a two-column editorial as well in rebuke of what I said, ending with the statement, that the speech was not any good anyway. Well, I have nothing to say as to the remarks of the professor. They seemed to me to be charged mainly with a lot of unnecessary and unsupported sarcasm and to be perfumed with an aroma of omniscient complacency that those who profess to be trained economists only too often exhibit. But the case presented by the other gentleman, whom I do not know, did make an attempt to present something that really was material. I believe I can use the argument he put forward in respect of one phase of the subject, which I think was again referred to in this debate by the hon. member for Red Deer. I think I can use Mr. Hull's reply to illustrate just where the inherent weakness of his case comes in. The examination of this will disclose also what folly it would be on the part of a country situated such as we are to follow the trail blazed by the hon. member for Red Deer.
I refer-and I do not need to go any further, because this is really emblematic of the entire reply-I refer to the exception taken to certain remarks of mine as respects the tin plate industry of Wales and its history as compared with the tin plate industry of the United States and its history. I had stated in my address, basing my facts upon the report of a body of business experts appointed by the Government of Mr. Asquith, that the tin plate industry in Wales suffered a very severe reverse in the last decade of the last cen-

tury, and that that reverse was due to the policy adopted in respect of tin plate by the United States in 1891. I showed that in 1891 the tin plate of the United States was supplied from Wales and as a consequence that country was importing some
680,000,000 pounds a year; that after the imposition of the duty the importations went down to 28,000,000 pounds; that at the time of the imposition of the duty the production of tin plate in the United States was only 2,000,000 pounds; and that as a consequence of the duty in the course of a few years not only did imports go down from 680,000,000 pounds to 28,000,000 pounds, but the production in the United States went up from 2,000,000 pounds to 2,000,000,000 pounds. Now, it might have been expected that such a reduction of imports would be reflected in a curtailment of the total trade figures of the United States, but, instead of being a loss to the United States, that reduction of imports was an advantage. The money that would otherwise have gone out was kept within the country. There was at the same time almost a collapse of the tin plate industry of Wales; a collapse that it took it at least twenty years to recover from; a collapse, which, indeed it has not wholly recovered from yet. While that was going on there was extreme suffering among the miners of Wales, and the industries related to the tin plate industry suffered as well. On the one hand, while in England, where there was no tariff and where the home market was invaded by those who kept their own markets to themselves-while in England there was continued suffering, continued depression, continued loss of trade, there was on the part of the United States a multiplied production, a multiplied increase in trade and a multiplied prosperity.
Now, I was answered by Mr. Hull to this effect: Yes, it is true; tin plate production went up from two million to two billion pounds-went up by a thousand fold. But oh, what it cost them, he said. Why, the amount paid the first year, an amount which did not go into the treasury at all, was some $6,000,000, and the price of tin plate increased so enormously that severe injury resulted to the canning industry of the United States. The people had to pay so much for cans that the fruit rotted and vegetables rotted, and consequently it did more harm than good. That was Mr. Hull's argument. Now, let us examine with just the same care what were the facts.
Yes, there was an increase but a trifling increase in the price of tin plate. There was no increase as compared with the year 1891. I have the figures here, taken from the Metal Record official report, which will show very quickly just what were the results. In 1890 the price of tin plate, Bessemer coke per 108 pounds was $4.80; in 1891, $5.34; in 1892, $5.30; in 1893, $5.37; 1894, $4,89; 1895, $3.87; 1896, $3.63; 1897, $3.20; 1898-the last year given here -$2.99. That is to say, tin plate went up from 1891, when the duty was imposed-it went into effect in 1892-from $5.34 to $5.37 in 1893. It went up from $4.80 in 1890'to $5.30 in 1892; that is the most favourable comparison which can be taken from the point of view of Mr. Hull. Now, what does that amount to? It amounts to less than one-half cent a pound; it would add to the price of a can for the purposes of the canning industry one-eighth of one cent. That is the total amount of the increase, and one-eighth of one cent to a cah is said by Mr. Hull to have been so high that it injured the canning industry of the United States. Could anything be more absurd? But what happened? It is a fact that the canning industry of the United States suffered from depression in 1891 and 1892 like almost everything else did, through over production. That is quite true, but it suffered nothing at all from the one-eighth of one cent to a tin. In the course of seven years, instead of an increase in the price of that product that they were making at home, there was a decrease from $5.34 to $2.99, or little more than half of what it was when the duty was put on. Does not that pretty well close the argument? Does it not show that in addition to securing a business which Britain had before and increasing the tin plate production from two million to two billion pounds; in addition to getting all the advantages accruing to a country from maintaining that tremendous industry at home; the advantage accruing from not sending the money outside in the purchase of the goods elsewhere; in addition to the advantage accruing to the cognate industries depending upon and getting benefit from the tin plate industry; in addition to all that they actually secured in time, by manufacturing in their own country on a tremendous scale, a very substantial reduction in the price of tin plate itself. I do not need to pursue this subject further. The same result on a lesser scale has happened in our country in relation to many articles; the same can be shown in


Mr. CRERAR:: Who is the author of
the article?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Norman P. Lambert, now secretary of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. I could pass from one of those classes of goods made free to another; but if I do, this speech will be much longer than it ought to be in a Budget debate.
My hon. friend frequently refers to the cream separator business. After the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) had ceased turning the cream separator, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) took up the task. On platform after platform he has been turning away at those separators. I cannot understand-in fact I am pretty well convinced that the contrary is the fact-what benefit in the world has accrued from taking the duty off cream separators. One can scarcely produce any better evidence than that furnished in an article that appeared some time ago in the Regina Leader. If the hon. member for Marquette wants to know what the Regina Leader is, I can tell him that too. That journal deputed one of its staff to find out what the differences in price were between implements in the United States and in Canada. He investigated. Every one knows that you can take a place just to suit you, on the one side of the line or on the other, and you can in that way make a difference in price in favour of whichever country you like. The best case that I have seen presented by way of comparison was presented by Mr. Findley, manager of the Massey Harris Company. It seemed to be most complete, and I believe it made an impression throughout the West. His figures showed the points where the freight rates were equal and, consequently, the comparison was the fairest that could be made. Well this servant of that newspaper went over, and he brought back figures to show what difference there was between the price a farmer had to pay in Canada and that paid by his more fortunate neighbour, as they put it, across the border. He gave a list of, I think, six or seven articles and he showed the difference in price between the two countries. Will any hon. gentleman in this House be bold enough to suggest what the article was upon which the percentage of difference was the biggest of the whole seven? Well, it was cream separators. The writer apparently did not know that cream separators had been on the free list for many years, so he included them in the list, and he showed that we were paying in this country

some $80 for a cream separator which the Americans paid $60 for-, or, perhaps, the prices are $90 and $70 respectively. At all events, the biggest margin of difference proportionate to cost, was in the case of cream separators. That would not indicate that we were very much the better off in point of price, to say nothing of the condition which the industry is in, because of what was done as to the duty on separators.


Mr. ROBB:: Was this man giving figures for the same make of cream separator in each case?


Arthur Meighen: Now may I ask the hon. member for Red Deer, which clause is he voting for? Did the hon. member ever hear about encouraging industries by taxing them? The tariff is a mere tax, just for the sake of raising money on account of our financial conditions, but the fiscal policy of the country should be the encouragement of industries. Now if there is any human being that can put those two clauses together and get his mind on the same side of the both of them, supporting them or opposing them, that is, if he is honest with his mind, I would like to see the specimen produced. The amendment goes on:
That the aim of the fiscal policy of Canada should be the encouragement of industries based on the natural resources of the country, the development of which may reasonably be expected to create healthy enterprises giving promise of enduring success.
That is good enough for any party. But if such is the case, how is it that the tariff is a mere tax, to be made as light as possible? Let me go into that for a moment. The aim should be "the encouragement of industries" based on the natural resources of the country. Now what are those industries? The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's told us; he gave us the key to the whole thing. The industries I would. encourage by a tariff tax, he says, are those, the raw materials of which are in this country. That would be one class, and he mentioned steel; steel was very appropriate, very appropriate indeed. Why, of course, he would protect the steel industry. Such an industry would be one based on our natural resources. But hundreds of industries in this country get the bulk of their raw materials in Canada, and the purpose of a tariff, in so far as its protective effect goes, is to develop the natural resources of a country. He says further that those are based on our natural resources that get their fuel in this country. That is coal. You see where the hon. gentleman comes in. So far as coal and steel are concerned, he can go to Nova Scotia and say: "I stand up for protection to these industries." But he went further than that; he said that if an industry were based on water-power, he would protect it. He says: "If they are using waterpower, why, then, that is a natural resource, and I would 'encourage' that too." And in case he should accidentally leave anything out, and thereby get into trouble anywhere, he included another class. He said: "You may have industries built up only upon the brains of the promotors of such industries"! and he gave us a beautiful illustration. He said there was a man in Scotland, in Glasgow, I think,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dundee.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, Dundee. He said that, though there were no oranges growing in Scotland, and there was no sugar made there, a certain man had found a way to make marmalade, and having done so had established an industry based on one of the natural resources of the country. And after he got through with that classification he declared: "That is the kind of industry I would encourage"; adding the very comforting assurance that such in-

dustries would not need "very much protection." Now, I should like to know how those words accord with the declaration that a tariff should not he based on the principle of protection. What industry in the world would not come in under the class named by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) ? And he says that the tariff should be such as to protect these industries! He declares, in one clause, that the tariff should not be based on the principle of protection, and in another clause he says "the encouragement of industry" is just what it ought to be based on. Let me ask my hon. friends opposite a very plain and simple question: Is the tariff in effect in this country to-day based on the principle of protection, or is it not? Now, I should like to get an answer, even a nod, I do not care whether vertical or horizontal. But I cannot get either one. I venture to say that there is not one gentleman opposite who will tell us in this debate whether the present tariff is based on the principle of protection or not. Why, if they say no, the immediate answer is: What then do you want? If they say yes, then the answer is: Why, this is your own tariff. There have been substantial reductions since their day, but the principle of protection is in the tariff now and it must have been there before the reductions were made. The tariff of this country to-day, in every essential feature, save reduction, is the tariff prepared by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's himself, which he lauded to the skies year after year as complying with every requirement of protection. He tells this House that he has never given adherence to the principle of protection. I tell my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's that he has given adherence to that principle in every Budget speech which he delivered during the course of fifteen years in power. He gave adherence to the principle of protection in every Budget he ever brought down, and in every tariff he framed; and not only did he do so, but he admitted the fact in Budget speech after Budget speech, and I have them before me. Let us see how the hon. member did obeisance to the principle of protection. I will take first a speech he made-


An hon. MEMBER:: What year?


Arthur Meighen: It does not matter what year; I will read from any speech he desires, delivered by the hon. gentleman during the whole fifteen years. Here is one from the speech of April 16, 1903.

Having said that you can possibly be too protectionist, and that it is possible to go too far, he explained the kind of protection he was opposed to, doing so in such a way that he could go to any city in Canada and stand by selections from his words. He says: The protection that I am opposed to is the kind of policy that would protect the growing of tea in British Columbia or of icicles in the north. Well, what man outside of an asylum would suggest any such thing? No one ever did that I heard , of. We want protection in this country the same as every other country in the world has it to-day, except Great Britain, and Great Britain has been getting there pretty fast, especially in the last week. We do not want anything in the way of insanity in protection. You can be extreme and abuse anything; we all know that. But when one says that he is opposed to such a process, and takes that as an excuse for saying in one paragraph of a heterogeneous amendment that he is opposed to the principle of protection, the thing is too absurd to admit of discussion. The hon. member said, in that speech, that there may be extremes. Undoubtedly. But are there extremes in the present tariff? If so, he is the father of them. He says:
Then there are extremes on the other side. There are people who, relying upon the sound principles of free trade sound enough in their proper place-
He has never yet told us where that "place" is.
[DOT]-are disposed to carry them to a point which takes no account of the conditions. They seem to adopt a theory, and they say: You must carry out that theory regardless of what may be done elsewhere: Fix your own tariff policy, and never mind what is done elsewhere. Well, I am sure we cannot go as far as that. Commercial questions are every day occupying more attention in the field of public affairs. There is great rivalry among the nations; nay, there is commercial war, and in a contest of that character, it is not enough to have a good old theory; you must understand the methods whereby your opponent plays the game, so that you may be able, if necessary, to modify your views.
Does any one suggest that that is not an admission of the protective principle? What in the world does it mean? If other nations put up tariffs and we have to do the same, then is it merely to secure revenue? What difference does it make to us, as regards our revenue, whether they put up their tariffs or not? If they put up their tariffs we have to do the same to protect the industries of this country, for if we did not those countries would have the advantage over us. There is as plain

an admission, in the hon. gentleman's speech, of protection as human lips could utter,-unless perhaps a plainer admission was uttered by the hon. member himself. Later on, he said:
We have endeavoured to give the country a tariff of stability,
Every year it was a question of "stability", as if there was any need of having stable taxes:
-a tariff which, in so far as a. tariff has any relation to prosperity, has been an Important factor in the development of Canada the last few years.
The tariff an important factor in the development of Canada! Is a tax an important factor in a country's development? Why is the tariff an important factor in development if it is not by reason of its protective effect? This speech is an admission of the principle of protection. On June 7, 1904, he said:
This tariff has included a considerable measure of incidental protection,-
As I remarked last year, what in the world is the difference what adjective you ascribe to protection if you have the duty? What in the world is the difference what you call it?

and in that respect it will command the admiration perhaps of some hon. gentlemen opposite who are more anxious for protection than some of us on this side of the House, I think. As to whether or not it is adequate protection-
Just listen to this.
-we have some evidence of a gratifying character that the tariff, without being excessive, is high enough to bring some American industries across the line.
Gratifying? Not sorry as he is now; not holding up his hands in warning to them to stay away if they think they need protection. Gratifying? In those days he endeavoured to bring American industries across the line-
-and a tariff which is able to bring those industries into Canada looks very much like a tariff which affords adequate protection.
It certainly did. Now does the hon. gentleman want to say that it is not an admission of the principle of protection? Everybody knows it is. Everybody knows from the experience of fifteen years that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's believes in the principle of protection. If he does not believe in it how can any one account for his record during those fifteen years? He then expressed belief in it on platform after platform, and I have given credit to him for adhering to it still, notwithstanding the fact that
he said he and his friends would follow an entirely different principle if returned to power. I have given him credit for it because I say it was far better for his party to break a political pledge, dishonourable though it be, than to bring the industrial fabric of this country into ruin or semiruin. But the hon. gentleman went on:
If my hon. friends opposite wish to see some of the good results-
Good results mind you!
-of the tariff let them go up to the city of Hamilton.
This is very interesting.
-let them go to the city of Hamilton and look at the vast industries which have been established there by American capitalists who have come across the line under the operation of this tariff, and who are now engaged in carrying on very large businesses. Let them go to the city of Toronto and the}' will And similar organizations of American capital starting in the manufacturing business.	,
Starting under the tariff that he put on. How does that compare with my hon. friend's assertion now that if any company thinks it is going to get a tariff in this country to keep it going it had better stay out of Canada?' And yet my hon friend boasted when he was in office that by the tariff he had imposed, which he said was not only a protective tariff, but an adequately protective tariff-he had induced companies to come to Hamilton, Toronto and other places.
So, we are able to say that not only has the tariff been a great revenue tariff, but one which has afforded a reasonable degree of incidental protection and one which has brought about, as far as these industries are concerned, very gratifying results.
Continuing he said:
This Government can be relied upon,-
And it could all right.
-while guarding against monopolies, trusts, and combines to give reasonable aid to the legitimate industries of the country,-
Now, did they give reasonable aid by taxation or by a protective tariff?
-and to adopt a tariff policy, which will not only be a policy for the benefit of the manufacturers-
This is the hon. gentleman who says he has never admitted the protective principle.
*-but a policy which, while giving them all due consideration, will have regard also to the interests of every class and section of the people and of every province in this great Dominion.
I could go further, I could go from speech to speech, but I want particularly

to refer to a speech that the hon. gentleman made when he introduced the increased woollen duties into this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: What year was that?


Arthur Meighen: I think that was in 1904. The Finance Minister of that day had said some woollen firms were not well managed. He went on to say that the woollen industry of the country was in a very difficult position, that it was struggling because of the advantages that competitors in other countries had over it. He said he thought something ought to be done to help the woollen manufacturers, otherwise they could not get along. Then he made this statement:
The complaint is made very largely by our, woollen manufacturers and by various public men who sympathize with them that although on the better grades of good3 they can fairly compete with all persons, even the British manufacturer, a very large proportion of the imports of British wollen goods coming into Canada are really shoddy goods of an inferior character, against which we ought to legislate ;- '
Bear that in mind-ought to legislate

-and it is alleged that any Increase which we might make in the woollen duties would have the effect of shutting out, not the purer woollen goods, but the shoddy goods. That is argued with much force, and I am inclined to believe that there is something In it.
That is, of course, very consistent with the idea that a tariff duty is only a tax to get money.
However, we propose to dell with the matter in this way: Our present duty on the class of goods which I may describe as cloths, tweeds, overcoatings, wearing apparel and goods of that character-
These are the goods he increased the tariff on. Now just watch-
*-is 35 per cent, subject to the preference, which brings the duty on British goods down to 23J per cent. We do not propose to increase the general tariff,-
It was 35 per cent.
-but we propose to put a limit on the extent to which the preference shall apply to these goods. We propose to fix a minimum tariff of 30 per cent on this class of goods coming in under the preferential tariff. This change will apply to all woollen goods mentioned in the tariff item 394 with the exception of blankets, flannels, bed conforters, and counLerpanes, which are placed in a group by themselves.
Raising the duty on woollen goods from Great Britain-and in the case of every other country it was 35 per cent-from 23 i to 30 per cent because the woollen industry could not survive unless he did. And still he says now he has never admit-
TMr. Meighen.]
ted the principle of protection. He did the same in the case of twine and cordage, not binder twine-he raised the duties from 168 per cent up to 20 per cent because otherwise the industry could not survive. Now surely I have driven enough extracts home to show that not only in speech but in practice, in' every single budget effort of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's during the whole fifteen years he was in office he adhered consistently and determinedly to the protective principle. After he went out of office he made the same profession. Why he made it last year. He tells us now that while he would protect existing industries based on the natural resources-as he defined them in his speech -he would say to any industry that was going to start up, "If you are depending on protection, my advice is keep away, I would not have anything to do with you. But as to those that are here I do not object to protecting them because they will not want much protection." Does the House know that last year he stated precisely the opposite? Last year he intimated that as far as a r.ew industry was concerned he would not mind it getting protection at all, but that as regards one that had become an industry of long standing he would not give it any. Where the infant had grown up, he said, and was beating the old man round the House, he would let it take care of itself. He said he never did object to the protection being supplied to infant industries. The hon. gentleman went further and he said this last year:
I do not want to insist that these departures from free trade are absolutely right, but I put them before my friends who are extreme free traders, facts which I believe can be sustained.
He says here this week there are none talking free trade at all, and he seemed about to spring across the table of the House at my throat because I had suggested at Sherbrooke that there really was an issue against free trade in this country. Nobody, he says, is a free trader now.
I believe they justify a departure from free trade principles under certain conditions. If those conditions can be limited, if we can get anybody to start any new industry-
Just listen to this.
-under the circumstances under which these were started,-
That is, the ones he started, as he explained in the previous part of his speech.
-if we can get anybody to start any new industry under the circumstances under which these were started, then I think myself that would justify a departure from the abstract principle of free trade.

So last year he told us that such circumstances would justify a departure. This year he says as to new industries "I will have nothing to do with them, hut I will continue to support those which are already in the country."
Now, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's tried to make out that because he effected in some microscopic way, to use the language of the hon. member for Red Deer, the' tariff that he found in force in 1897 when he came into power, and reduced the average tariff only from 29.9 to 29.2, or .7 of one per cent, "nevertheless," he says, "the changes were a great relief to the consumers of this country because what we did was this: We lowered on the necessaries of life, the things that the people had to have, and by doing that, although we did not reduce the 5 p.m. general level very much, there was a marked relief to the consumers of Canada." Well, I have a list here of the goods on which he reduced the tariff. This is a sheet from the campaign literature of the Liberal party in 1904, and I want to analyse for a moment the results of these strenuous efforts of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's to reduce the tariff on the necessaries of life and thereby afford great "relief", as he puts it, to the Canadian people. This pamphlet says:
Here is a list of articles that formerly were subject to duty and that now are free.
Now, will hon. members listen to these "necessaries of life." Mind you, you can always refer to barbed wire, binder twine and cream separators, as the hon. member for Red Deer does, but outside of those three let any hon. member go through this list and see where any duties on the necessaries of life have been cut down. The first is:
Degras oleostearine-
Has any hon. member ever heard of that? The next are:
Florists stock, as follows:-corns, tubers rhi-zones, auracaria, spiroea:
Indian Corn,
Seed beans^from Britain,,
Rape seed-sowing,
Mushroom spawn,
Artificial limbs,
Asphaltum (refined),
Religious tracts,
Clay crucibles,
Cyanogen.	[DOT]
And another one, if any hon. member can pronounce it: Q-u-e-b-r-a-c-h.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sandpaper.


Arthur Meighen: Then follows:
Extract of nut galls; Fashion plates,
I went through the entire list, and outside of the three that I have named I admit I found one that I think in this age of decay might fairly be described as a necessary of life, and that was-false teeth.
But the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's said that he had reduced the duty on a certain kind of cloth that the common people wore which he found taxed in every way one could think of. This cloth was subject to a duty of so much a piece, of so much a dozen, and then on that a percentage ad valorem, and he claimed that he had remedied all that and had cut down the duty to a moderate figure 20, 25 or 30 per cent. I went through the whole list to find what in the world he referred to, because I had never heard of the fact before, and the only thing that I can find in this list published by the Liberal party that would answer his description is cotton shirts. Now, what is the history of his treatment of cotton shirts? The only cottoh shirts he touched were those costing more than $3 per dozen. The only duty was $1 a dozen and 25 per cent ad valorem. That, the pamphlet says, made a total of 37 per cent ad valorem, computed on the basis of the 1896 imports. Now then, will the delighted and relieved consumers be ready for announcement of the reduction that he actually made? He reduced the duty from 37 to 35 per cent.
What is the use of talking? The hon. member found a protective tariff in effect, and he kept it in effect-he scarcely changed it at all. Any change he made one could scarcely see with a microscope. When he went out of power the tariff averaged 26.7 per cent, and was in all essentials, except the three I have mentioned-and, as I say, there have been more important reductions since then than there were in the whole fifteen years he was in power-just as he found it. The tariff that he left at that figure in the fiscal year that has just passed averages precisely
21.2	per cent. Now, he says: "The tariff is a tax and you should make it just as light as you can." That is what he says in the tax paragraph of the amendment. Well, if it is a tax you can make it light in proportion to your needs I suppose; that is the only thing that will enable you to do so. What were his needs when he reduced the tariff from 29.9 to 29.2? They were

$37,000,000 or $40,000,000 a year. His needs when he went out of office and was making the tariff 26.7 per cent on dutiable goods were about $120,000,000. The tariff, remember, is a tax, and to-day this country needs, as every hon. gentleman knows, $435,000,000, and we are maintaining the tariff at 21.2 per cent. Yet the hon. gentle man challenges us in this House, and says "the main charge I have against the Government of the day is that the tariff is too high." If that is not his charge, what is it? True he has taken good care not to say it in this amendment, but if that is not his charge will he let us know what it is? If hon. gentlemen want something reduced, why does not their amendment say so? In a word, why does it not state, express and reflect the tariff programme to which they are pledged?
I proceed with this amendment. Here is the third clause :
That such changes should be made toms duties as may be expectedin the-cus-
" Such changes"-did any one notice that the word " reducion " was not there? It was there last year; it was in the Liberal platform, but so great was the strength of hon. gentlemen around him that they succeeded in getting the word " changes " substitued for the word " reduction." I continue the reading of the paragraph:
Such changes should be made in the customs duties as may be expected to reduce the hteh cost of living.
" May be expected to." The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's may say in his county that the cost of living can be reduced by raising the tariff. Indeed he indicated as much in this House when he spoke of what he had done for the coal and steel of Nova Scotia. Did he not say then that his policy had reduced the price of the product?
other reference to a reduction? Does my hon. friend refer to that part of the clause which says " may be expected to reduce the cost of living"? Well, that is just where the joker comes in. The hon. member took care that he would be able to go to his constituency and preach the very same doctrine as that on which he was elected-the doctrine of protection.
.Mr. RINFRET: How does the right hon. gentleman know? His Government has no candidate there.


Arthur Meighen: Why, there is no election there, but there is an election in the county of York-Sunbury and the hon. gentleman has no candidate there.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I made no statement about York-Sunbury, and I do not expect my right hon. friend to make any statement about St. James when he does not know anything about it.


Arthur Meighen: Unfortunately, I do
know something about my hon. friend. 1 know the tariff platform upon which he contested his seat. I have read his speeches.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: How do you know?


Arthur Meighen: I have read the speeches and I have read some of his newspaper articles.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Did my hon. friend
approve of my speeches?


Arthur Meighen: On the tariff platform his speeches were very good, because they advocated precisely the tariff platform of this Government. All that is the matter with the hon. gentleman is partisanship; if he could get away from that he would be all right.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Unlike the Prime Minister.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: What about that clause?


Arthur Meighen: This clause? Will the hon. gentleman say whether it means " reduction " or "increase"? The hon. gentleman does not answer.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The Prime Minister
says that the word " reduction " is not in the amendment, but he has read it twice. The word is there twice.


Arthur Meighen: It is only there once, so far as I have been able to see. They regret that no reductions have been made, but they do not say they will do anything to bring a reduction about. Where is the


Arthur Meighen: If he would stand up for those who frankly say they are with him in tariff matters, but he and those who think with him go before their constituents and say:	Why, we do not propose to reduce a single item of the tariff; we can reduce the cost of living by seeing to it that we make more, things in this country; by seeing to it that we get a scale of production which will enable manufacturers to reduce the cost; by seeing to it that by competition developed through a protective tariff we bring about a reduction of prices to the consumer of Canada. That will be my hon. friend's position in the county of St. James.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I ask again, how does the Prime Minister know?


Arthur Meighen: It is a pretty safe conjecture because that is what the amendment enables him to do. What my hon. friend is going to do I have no means of knowing except by what he did before; I presume he will adopt the same tariff platform the next time that he adopted on the former occasion. I know that his journals all through the province of Quebec-including his own journal, the one to which he sends most astounding reports from this House-are continually assuring the manufacturers and the workingman of that province not to fear anything should the Liberal party get into power. They say:	"We are protectionists the same as you are; do not be afraid of us Liberals if we get into power." That is what the Quebec journals are saying, and saying repeatedly. Did the hon. gentleman ever see those sentiments in the press.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Do not connect me with La Presse.


Arthur Meighen: Well, Le Canada, we will try that one. Did the hon. gentleman ever see in his journal any article denouncing the principle of protection? Has he ever published any such article? I read that paper occasionally, and I have never seen anything of the kind. I do not know myself of a single Liberal journal in the province of Quebec, either French-Cana-dian or English-Canadian, which takes any such attitude. And what about the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler)? He is a gentleman of strong views; there are not many cobwebs in his brain; he talks pretty clearly. He made a speech the other day before the Reform club of Montreal, and I have a copy of that speech before me. Will he go back to his county and say that he voted against protection? Will he go back and say that he is against the principle of protection? Is he going to vote that way in this House? Which clause of this amendment is he going to support? Here is what he said in Montreal:
I would say that he is a hold man-
"Bold man," remember.
-who declares that one who believes that Canada should have a moderate tariff for revenue, or protection of industries and employment, was not a good Liberal.
Does it not look as if the hon. member for Waterloo could be a Liberal and at the same time a protectionist? Will the hon. gentleman vote for this amendment
and still be a protectionist? I cannot get a nod from him, either; there is no reply. Of course there is a clause in the amendment to fit his case-there is one to fit every case.


Mr. EULER:: The Prime Minister has the floor now.


Arthur Meighen: But I want my hon. friend to explain his vote. I want him to explain which clause he will have in mind, which he is voting for and which he is voting against, when he supports the amendment-if he does; I still have some confidence that he will not support it. Listen to this protectionist doctrine as propounded by the hon. member for Waterloo:
One matter which people had to think of today was the labour question. Canadian workmen had become used to a. good standard of living, and he believed-
That is, the hon. member for North Waterloo.
that this standard should be kept up, though, perhaps, in some instances they had gone too far.
Referring, I suppose, to the workingmen.
To keep up these standards for the working people it was essential that there should not be unfair competition with countries where the standard of living was lower. Much better it would be if the standard of living in these Countries were raised to the standard of that of Canada. Mr. Euler instanced the manufacture of buttons, of which article Kitchener made the total Canadian product.
I have not the least doubt that when the hon. member goes back to Kitchener his platform will be much the same as that of the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Gordon); it will be a case of "Kitchener first."
And what about the hon. member for West Peterborough himself, who was elected upon a declaration that he stood "for the protection of industries and for the protection of labour?" What about the hon. gentleman's denunciation of me as an interloper and shameless intruder because I dared to say that the tariff had anything at all to do with that election. By the way, what did the hon. member for Red Deer mean when he stated that we ought to draw a lesson from the election in Peterborough? Why, the only candidate there who came anywhere near to standing on his platform-the only one Who supported a policy resembling his in the remotest degree was a man who got approximately one-quarter of the votes. The successful candidate was elected on a protectionist platform; the leader of the Op-

position went there in order to see that his candidate might be returned on a platform of protection. Why, he said, this Parliament has no right to touch the tariff, and even if I were Prime Minister I would not alter one word, one schedule or one item of the tariff until we had another appeal to the people. But he since submitted an amendment in this House-and in support of it he got the vote of the hon. member for West Peterborough-the object of which was to change the tariff duties on from one hundred to two hundred articles at this session of the House. What will be the position of the hon. member for West Peterborough if he votes for this amendment? Is he, who was elected because he declared he was a protectionist; is he who was elected because he pinned his faith to protection-is he going to go back to his constituents and say: I have voted against the principle of protection? I will tell you what he is going to say: "I voted for the protection of industry based upon the natural resources of the country; I voted for paragraph 3 of the amendment.
The House will remember that the third last paragraph refers to such changes "as may be expected to reduce the cost of living." Then the second last paragraph says:
That, while keeping: this aim clearly in mind-
Just keeping it "in mind."
-the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff that may take place, regard must he had to existing conditions of trade.
Does the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) say that in readjusting a tariff, you should have regard to 'existing conditions of trade? Does the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) say that? He says that he is going to vote for that; the hon. member for Red Deer is going to vote for it; but they voted already this session for something that they said they did not believe in-at all, and I suppose they can do so again-anything to get in the same boat with hon. gentlemen opposite.
Regard must he had to existing conditions of trade, and changes made in such manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
That is a new translation of the phrase that was used with admirable regularity by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in many speeches that he has been delivering. He said: "Do not worry; when I amend the tariff, I will have regard to the needs of industry." Having
|Mr Meighen.j
overworked that phase, which was a clear declaration for protection, they change it, and they say that they will "have regard to existing conditions of trade" and see that there is no "disturbance of business." All that they will do in connection with these "changes" that may be made, "expecting to reduce the cost of living," will be to keep them "in mind." That is what the resolution says.
There is no doubt where the Government stand. There is no measure of doubt through this country. The hon. member for Red Deer, the hon. member for Marquette, everyone, so far as I know, who has spoken, clearly stated that the country could not fail to understand where the Government stood on tariff matters. It is not where the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) says it stands, in the speech which he delivered and which contained many a sentence for which he had no warrant in the world. He said: "This Government stands for high protection." I wish he were in the chamber, so that I might ask him upon what authority he made that statement. Can he find any sentence or utterance of mine to justify him? Can he find any act of this Government or any schedule of the tariff to justify him in it, unless he admits that he himself is a high protectionist too? Upon what authority then does he make that assertion? He makes it upon no authority at all. This Government stands for the tariff that is in existence to-day, and in any adjustment that will be made we will admit the principle of protection and we will apply it, but only to the extent that we have applied it during our term of office here, namely, to the extent essential to ensure production in this country and to enable producers to compete with similar businesses in other countries. Have we ever done more than that? I ask again: What warrant have hon. gentlemen opposite, time after time, without a reference, without a single quotation from anything, without even pointing the finger at an item of the tariff, to keepv continually asserting, through the press and upon platforms in this country, that this Government is a high protectionist Government? That is a misrepresentation. This indeed is their own tariff reduced.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) accused me of misrepresentation when I told the people of Sherbrooke that there was an issue to-day between free trade and protection. I did not use those exact words, but I will not quar-

rel with them. Let me discuss that question now that my hon. friend has arrived in the chamber, and we will see whether there is an issue between free trade and protection. He says that nobody is talking about free trade now. What kind of individual is the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) ? What kind of individuals are the whole rank and file of the Farmers' party through Western Canada? Does my hon. friend believe that they are not talking about free trade? Does he believe that they do not mean to have it? I should like him to take a trip through that western country. If he does, he will see the authority upon which these hon. gentlemen of the Farmers' party are in this House. He will see the determination that is there. That party was bred out of resentment, because they felt that they were deceived in 1896 and 1897 by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) himself. Resentment is what gave rise to that party, and they have since been nourished upon those doctrines of free trade through their press by hon. gentlemen over there, by the hon. member for Marquette in speech after speech, in which he preached the gospel of free trade. Is he nobody? I know that, in latter months, now that the marriage is being celebrated little by little with the official Opposition, he has got upon the "easy stages' " course; but, as he says, it is free trade that he is heading for. He believes in free trade, and for the life of him, he cannot give a sound reason why, if free trade is as good as he says it is, he would not have it at once. The only real reason is that he wants to help his friends of the Opposition. This is what I said at Sherbrooke; I am going to read it and I commend it to the attention of hon. members of this House, to the attention of the province of Quebec and to the attention of the people of every province in Canada:
There .may be some who say that even this Farmers' party is hedging on the question of free trade yet, I know when they are seeking votes in Eastern Canada, they take pretty long chances on that subject and they hedge rather clumsily, it is true, but they try to convince those whose votes they want that they are not quite as bad as they have been painted.
This is the shorthand report of my speech.
The policy and intent of a party can be read from several things. I would think, first, it could be read from the declarations of its acknowledged leader; I would think next, it could be read from the definite stipulations of its platform; and next, that it could be read in the minds and utterances of the great body of its rank and
file. Now, let me appeal to these sources. Here is what Mr. Crerar, who leads this party, to which I am directing attention, said only about four or five months ago:
"The policy of Canada for the last forty years has not been an enlightened policy."
Did that apply to the fifteen years during which the Liberal party were in power? Were not those fifteen years a part of the forty? He does not say that there are two policies; he says that there is one, but that it has not been an enlightened policy. I continue my quotation of Mr. Crerar's remarks:
"Its purpose has been to favour certain people to the damage of the rest of the nation. This has been done through protection, or what was known as the tariff. The tariff increased the price of commodities of every kind for the Canadians. The proper way to tax the people is by direct and not indirect taxation."
And again:
"The burden of Mr. Crerar's speech was a eulogy of the doctrine of free trade and an attack of the present fiscal policy of protection. Protection, he said, is a special privilege whereby certain men enjoy advantages that others in the community do not have."
A definite free trade commitment, and that is Mr_ Grerar's belief, and I know it. Speaking at Woodstock, N.B., on the 10th December last, he said-and let very man, woman and child, who depends on the industries of Sherbrooke listen to this:
"If we cannot make shoes as cheaply here as they can make them in the United States, then we have not reached the time when we should be making shoes."	i
Where is the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), who is in the "same boat" with the hon. member for Marquette? The hon. member says that we should not be making shoes unless we can make them as cheaply as they can be made in the United States. If we carried out that principle, we would have scarcely an industry in this country:
"We should be making the things which we can produce the cheapest and trade on that basis."
The man who believes that, believes in the whole abolition of the protective tariff. Again, at Brandon, on the ISth November last, here were his words ringing clear:
"The policy of protection is the greatest curse and drawback we could have in Canada."
Does the hon. member see much resemblance between that and the amendment which he is voting for to-day:
Now, you do not wonder that a sort of sublieutenant' of Mr. Crerar's was not listened to very much in the county of Colchester, when he told the good people there that, after all, they did not want free trade. Why free trade is the very heart and soul of the whole Farmer movement and platform.
Now isn't it? Is not the cry, "On to Ottawa for free trade?" Is not that the

great prompting motive and battle cry of the farmers' movement in the West? There is no question about it:
Practically every recital in their written platform brought out on the 18th November, 1918, denounces protection as a curs" in this Dominion, as an unmitigated curse in this country, and implies that the Farmers' party will not rest until protection is gone; then they declare that immediately they must have free trade in all foods, and food stuffs in this Dominion, free trade with England in five years, free trade in vehicles, including aucomobiles, and in cement, fertilizers, everything all down the list, leaving only a few nondescript articles that could temporarily be taxed.
Because they have a plank also which virtually calls for free trade in the necessaries of life, which, if you enact, you might just as well have free trade:
A platform that declares for that is a free trade platform.
Does the hon. gentleman deny it? I say that free trade in those things means free trade all round in so far as goods produced in this country are concerned ,and that is what free trade means. You can have a tariff and have free trade; that is to say, you can have a tariff and lave no protection. Great Britain had it for 60 years. She has not it now, and when her Safeguarding the Industries Bill goes into effect they will have a protection that along with other devices employed will compare with that now existing in the United States. I think my hon. friend from Red Deer had better go back home if he wants to propagate his doctrine where it is most needed if it is of any value.
It is no information to tha people of Sherbrooke to be told that this whole movement was born of the Western Prairies.
I repeat that, and I emphasize it, and I ask hon. gentlemen to repeat it anywhere they like.
This whole movement was born of the Western Prairies, the prairies from which I come, and in which I have fought the movement from my earliest days in polities, and in which I will fight it to my last day in political life. There it took its birth, there where you have the largest proportion anywhere in this Dominion-
This is important.
-composed of recent immigrants from many countries, chiefly from the United States of America. There this movement took its birth. Out of that soil it grew, and living there, as I have, for twenty-two years I tell you what I know when I say that the spirit of the movement and the intent of its leaders and founders, the determined intent of the rank and file right through the Prairies is free trade, nothing more and nothing less. Now men who want that, we know where they are. We know exactly what principle they stand for, and we are able to

argue with them. We respect them, whether we differ or not, so long as they are manly and frank and tell us the principle to which they adhere.
I think I should have added "and vote for the principle to which they adhere." Such was my authority for saying that we had a free trade issue in Canada.


Mr. FIELDING:: Do I understand my
hon. friend is alleging that I misquoted him?


Arthur Meighen: I cannot find in the speech the exact words, but I do not quarrel; the intent was the same. I did give expression to that meaning, but I cannot find the exact words. I do not accuse the hon. member of misrepresenting me, but I do accuse him of stating that I misrepresented the issue in this country, when I did not misrepresent the issue at all. I know the hon. gentleman is not declaring for free trade. I know what he is doing. I know that he is circling all round the subject, pursued by the protectionist battalions around him, and held in leash on the end of a string by the indignant free traders of the West. That is what the hon. gentleman is doing; that is the exercise he is engaged in now. It is as a consequence of that, that we are met in this House now not by the platform of the Liberal party, not by the platform of the Agrarian party, but by a sort of tautological compound that you can read anything into you like, and read anything out of you like. Such is the device to which hon. gentlemen have been compelled to resort in order to get into the same boat for the purpose of a vote in Parliament. I say again, that may work all right in this House, but I do say this: it is not making any impression on the people of this country. Its object is fully understood. Go where you will in this Dominion, and hon. gentlemen opposite will find that they have earned the reputation of refusing to be frank on the great tariff issue. I say to the leader of the Opposition that, unfortunately, such reputation particularly attaches to him. I do not know that I blame him any more than the rest.
I know that he is surrounded by different opinions. I know the difficulties he is in, but I think it would be better for him to get on one side of the principle and stay on it, and take the consequences, whatever they may be. Does he now tell this House he will vote to say the tariff should not be based on the principle of protection? The hon. gentleman who moves the amendment says all that means they are not going to put a tariff on everything on earth, to pro-

tect tea in British Columbia, and icycles in Greenland, or the growing of bananas, I suppose, on the shores of Baffin's hay. Is that to be all that the leader of the Opposition means when he votes that tariff should not be based on the principle of protection? Let him tell this House plainly that if he gets into power he will not have protection in Canada, that he will not practice protection in this Dominion. I ask him when he speaks in this debate to tell us whether he will or will not afford protection to the industries of Canada. Let him say that he will afford protection to the industries of Canada based on the natural resources, if he likes, and he can change the definition of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's if he wants to. Let him say definitely what he will do. Will he abandon protection or will he adhere to it? I do not care a bit about the adjective he uses-not a particle. Let him tell this country whether he intends to practice protection or whether he does not. I asked, when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was out of the chamber, and I appealed only for a nod, but I could not get even that from those who were in front of me, whether the present tariff of this country was based on the principle of protection. I ask my hon. friend now. There is not even a nod from him. May I ask the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). I want to tell him that if I read his speech aright he is as sound a protectionist as ever stood in this or any other Parliament. In the speech he made last night he told us that it was the duty of this country to take care of the workmen's families down in the province of Nova Scotia, and to see to it that the price we paid for coal was high enough, even if it was higher than we could buy coal from anywhere else, that these men might be employed and that their children who to-day are without food can get bread. That is pretty good protectionist doctrine. The hon. member says he will stand for that; he supports it, and he is going to fight for that in this House. I do not blame him, nor do I find fault with him for frankly saying in that speech that he does favour the protective principle. He has said so over and over again. How is he going to vote when the amendment comes up for decision?
Now, I have delayed the House, I had almost said unconscionably longer than I intended, probably much longer than is my due share. I have stated where the Government stands on the issue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Arthur Meighen: I have tried also to
state where hon. gentlemen of both factions of the Opposition have said they stand on the issue. I repeat, I do not care whether they get together or whether they maintain this ostensible separation. All that I appeal to them for is this: that they tell us where they stand upon this question, and that they adhere definitely, and consistently to their position in the House and out of it, both by vote and by speech. If they can get together and stand on a common footing, submitting something which they can say is what they all agree to and will perform; if they will say: "This is our platform, and we will carry this out", very well; that would be frank and honest. But let this game cease that has been played for the last two years. It is not doing any good; it is not deceiving any one; it is not doing any credit to the politics of Canada.
The manifest course for this country to pursue-and I venture to say that 75 per cent of the people of this Dominion in their hearts approve

is a policy of moderate protection in Canada. Anything also under existing world conditions would be madness itself. I have uttered these words in terms no stronger than would be used in conversation by many hon. gentlemen opposite, and I believe that it is the opinion of 75 per cent of the people of this country at the present time. Such is the policy this Government intends to pursue.
On the very eve and under the shades of the impending revision, which I fear is to be drastic, of the tariff of the United States, who is there that suggests that we at this time, should undertake to make a revision in this country? The United States, by reason of its tremendous size and industrial potency, exercises inevitably a very great influence over our commercial conditions and destiny, and we must have regard to what it does, regard ten times greater than any concern they need have for us. We are merely one factor, and a relatively small factor compared with the whole, in the considerations that determine their policy. But they are a mighty factor in the computation of conditions that determine ours. Sixty-nine per cent of our imports we buy from them. Oh, it is suggested-and really I hardly know what language I could use to describe the suggestion-that the present tariff which the United States is about to institute has been brought about, because foresooth, we did not accept the Reciprocity proposal of 1911. A more childish sugges-



[Stage Direction]
tion could not be addressed to the intelligence of the Canadian people than to imply that this is penalizing legislation on the part of the United States the result of our rejection of reciprocity. May I enquire first of all how is it that they are penalizing every other country as well? The tariff which is now about to go into effect in the United States applies everywhere else, the same as here. What was the offence of these other countries? Later, they offered us wheat and products of wheat free if we would do the same for
them.	We accepted that proposal, and now shortly after our acceptance goes into effect the present Bill provides 35 or 40 cents duty on wheat, and 25 per cent duty on flour. Are we being punished because we accepted their offer in that respect? Why are not those duties left out of their impending tariff? They also offered us free potatoes if we reciprocated, and we accepted that offer. But the present tariff has 25 cents a bushel on potatoes. In both these instances the tariff is almost prohibitive; again I ask are we being punished for accepting the reciprocal offers as to these commodities. I pass on. We are selling the United States $542,000,000 worth of goods and buying from them $856,000,000 per year. Are we penalized because the advantage to them is not greater? Is that the case? Have we not treated them fairly? The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) says this tariff is all our fault. Let me ask, in the name of Canada, what would be right treatment on our part to the United States? If conditions that enable them to sell us $856,000,000 worth a year, and buy from us only $542,000,000, are too onerous for them and too good for us, what does my hon. friend suggest? If their mind is to penalize us, if this tariff is the consequence of any resentment on their part, one would have thought that they would have acted sooner. But, on the contrary, they acted the other way. In 1913, under the Underwood Tariff, two years after reciprocity was defeated, the United States threw down the bars very largely on most of the goods included in the Reciprocity Agreement. That is the way they acted
then.	Why? Because they wanted to favour us? Not at all; it was because they thought it was good policy for the United States. They thought they could handle the products of Canada and become, in respect of those goods, the great distributing agents and could make a profit

on the distribution. And so they did. The time has come now, however, when, by reason of conditions clearly stated in their own speeches in their House, they cannot do this any longer. They have a plethora of these goods and the farmers of the United States have demanded that as against these foreign products they be given due protection. That demand is being conceded. Hon. gentlemen suggest that if reciprocity had been accepted, and the plethora from this country had been still greater, then the United States would not take the step they seem about to take. Could anything be more utterly absurd? The conditions that brought about this change of policy in the United States would undoubtedly have been worse under reciprocity, if the reciprocity had any effect at all. And hon. gentlemen say that if the conditions had teen worse the remedy would have been postponed! Well, Mr. Speaker, if this is to be the policy of the United States, they have a right to choose their path. If they so direct their steps, then it will be for Canada, under the conditions that will be forced upon us, to determine what is our course, having regard to the interests of Canada and to the interests of Canada alone.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 109, for the relief of John Edward Kelly.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill' No. 110, for the relief of Annie Belle Westbeare.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Christina Wilson Stephens.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Alice Andrews.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Esther Annie Vanzant.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Werden Grant Parker.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of James Edward Nixon.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Joseph Sorton.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Gladys Frances Annie Wheeler Bernard.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of William Carr.-Mr. Boys.

Bill No. 126, for the relief of Ida Florence Keenan.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Gertrude May Turner.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of James Henry Bigrow.-Mr. Harrison.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Emelina Dunsmore.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Alfred William Wells.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude Conner.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Louise Sullivan.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Lily Appleton.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Harry Hirshenbain.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Percy Christopher Paul.-Mr. Harrison.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of John Graham.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 132, respecting the Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38 to incorporate La Compagnie de Telephone Quebec Union Electrique (The Quebec Union Electric Telephone Company). Mr. Power, considered in committee and reported.
On the motion of Mr. Copp for the third reading:
Mr. BELAND:: What is this Bill, may I ask, Mr. Speaker?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is a telephone Bill.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It never went into committee.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: Oh yes, it was read by the Chairman clause by clause.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This Bill has been reported from Committee of the Whole.


Henri Sévérin Béland: When did it pass the committee?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To-night.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The clauses were not called.


Mr. MORPHY:: Oh yes, they were.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They were not read.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I was present this evening when the clauses were called, and they were all called.
212i


An hon. MEMBER:: But not read.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They were not read.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: All
the clauses were not read, but all the headings were read. .


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is too late now to make objection to the method in which the Bill proceeded in committee. The fact is I have a report from Committee of the Whole that this Bill has been passed, and we are now concerned with the' third reading. If the hon. member desires to debate the third reading, it is competent for him to do so; otherwise the third reading will have to take place.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Would it be in order to move that we postpone the third reading until the hon. member who has introduced the Bill is present?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I assume there is no objection to allowing the third reading to stand.'


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed as chairman of the Railway Committee, this Bill has been thoroughly discussed in the Railway Committee, having taken up several days of the time of the members of that committee. I understand that Mr. Power is now-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member for Quebec South.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Quebec South is in hospital and not likely to be out for several days.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The third reading will stand.



WESTERN DOMINION RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. H. B. Morphy (North Perth) the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 44 respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company was read the first and second times and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Debate resumed on the annual statement presented by the Minister of Finance.
Mr. L. T. PACAUD (Megantic) :: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) who preceded me this afternoon will not, I am sure, find me discourteous if I do not follow him closely in the remarks which he uttered. He has given to this House as leader of the Gov-

first place, the Opposition fought for information which the minister refused to give. In the, second place, the Opposition requested that, faithful to tradition, faithful to the best procedure in this House, the leaders of both parties should get together, so that in the expenditures of such large appropriations of money, the best interests of Canada should be maintained and safeguarded. What was the result? The better to shut out debate, to eliminate all danger of having to give the information which was sought of them, the Government immediately imposed the closure, making of this Parliament a mere tool of the Government, handing to the few men who happen to be ministers of the Crown to-day, $80,000,000 of the people's money without proper or full discussion by the representatives of the people. To pass their Estimates with the least resistance, the Government uses a double weapon; they sharply curtail discussion through closure, and they rely on all-night sittings of the House, the better to achieve the end which they have in view. This high-handed method of procedure, to my mind, at least, is no mere parliamentary incident which can be easily discarded and forgotten. It is the sapping, at its very basis, of the first function of a parliament, the control of the purse, the control of the expenditure of the people's money.
May I show this House, by an example, the great benefits that may be derived when this control of Parliament of these expenditures of the public money is maintained, respected and safeguarded by the Government? Let us turn to France. Nobody in this House would like to minimize the record of France, whether it be in time of peace or in time of war. Her strength lies in her patriotism-patriotism that places country ever before party. Let us take her Budget of 1921. It will be to us a lesson which it would be well for us never to forget. The Finance Minister of France was confronted with the figures presented to him by the various departments of the French Government. He, unhesitatingly, began his work of elimination. Estimates comprising many millions of francs were cut out, and he confidently presented to the French Parliament his revised esti mates for their perusal and consideration. What happened? The two Budget commissions of both branches of the French Parliament, with the freedom of action that was denied to us in this House under the circumstances which I related, began in turn to scrutinize the whole range of

national expenditure, and as a result of their labours-labours unhampered as were ours in this House-there was a reduction in their estimates of three billion francs, accepted by the French Parliament, by the French Government and by the French people. Does this example not show us the dangerous course that we have been following? Does it not show what we have never ceased to claim that it is high time to return to constitutional practice, to put aside these autocratic methods of government which are flourishing to-day as they have never flourished before in the history of this country? Is it not fair to ask that if the Government had given this Parliament the same freedom in the voting of large appropriations of money

a freedom that ought to be guaranteed by our constitution, a freedom for which our soldiers fought and for which 60,000 are now lying in France to protest against the autocracy of Germany-should we not, like France, have been able to reduce our Estimates by many millions of dollars, and would not that have been a benefit to the taxpayers of Canada?
There is another question intimately connected with retrenchment and economy. Every member of this House will agree with me, I am sure, as to the necessity of stimulating production in every branch of industry as a means, if for no other reason, of improving our present financial position. But, Sir, to achieve'this end, to reach the results which we have in view, is it not evident that every producer in Canada, if you wish him to respond to this call, should at least feel and know that no partiality will be displayed to any one section of the community to the detriment of any other section, but that all the producers of Canada will be placed on the same footing with equal opportunities.
Sir, let us watch this Government. Let us see to what extent they measure up to this standard without which their policy becomes a mere sham and an outrageous mockery. They start off on a nation-wide campaign, with a great flourish of trumpets, to instil into the hearts and minds of Canadians the necessity for work, and more work, and they couple with that advice a warning to economize-something which the Government never practice themselves-as the one and only means of improving conditions in Canada. The patriotism of the Canadian people, so severely put to the test during the years of high deeds and noble sacrifices, again asserted itself in unmistakable tones. They took the

Government at their word and responded loyally to their appeals. The Government, recognizing that production without markets in which to dispose of your products would be like a body without a soul, launched out into their new policy of granting loans and credits to foreign countries. But here, Sir, the scene changes. We find that this Government, appearing to us as preaching giants, are ip reality but pigmies at work.
May I illustrate by an example that I have in mind? Let us take the credit of $25,000,000 to Belgium. I do not wish to discuss the question of the advisability or otherwise of this Government granting credits to foreign countries. That is a question to my mind intimately connected with the tariff, and would draw me away from the only point I wish to make. I might say, however, that in my view it might be a dangerous form of helping the producer, because you might hurt very considerably the whole body of consumers unless you lowered the duties on the articles affected by such credits; but whether this view be right or wrong, once the Government had decided on such a policy, what I do affirm is that there was no country in the world in which Canada could have found greater security than Belgium, a nation to which the whole allied world owes to-day such a deep debt of gratitude. We have in Belgium, Mr. Speaker, a manufacturing country, which did not need our manufacturers' goods, but wished to avail herself of this loan to secure our Canadian hard wheat. What did this Government do? They made an agreement dated March 21, 1919, by which only one-fourth of this loan to Belgium could be available for the purchase of food stuffs, thus forcing the Belgium Government against their will to purchase manufactured goods and raw materials of manufacture to the extent of four-fifths of the entire loan. What was the result? Just what was to be expected. With the exception of $1,500,000-$277,000 in food stuffs, $185,000 of which was for bacon, an article of food which made a name for itself during the war, and the balance for manufactured goods and raw materials-the credit was cancelled and the Belgium Government had to go . to American bankers to secure our Canadian wheat, which they wanted to get from Canada, but which they could not get in Canada due to the partiality exercised by this Government in enforcing on a manufacturing country this agreement whereby four-fifths of the loan had to be used for the purchase of manufactured products or
raw materials. To throw more light on this subject, and to establish more clearly the case that I have in view, may I be permitted to read a letter which I have received from a correspondent in the West: Regina, March 1, 1921.
Dear Mr. Pacaud,
I beg to inform you that I have just returned from an extensive trip in Europe. As you know I have been interested for the last ten years in grain growing in Saskatchewan, and took great pains whilst in Belgium to find out about the 'market conditions and possibilities for the placing of our Canadian wheat in Belgium.
Unfortunately, I have found out that millions of bushels of Canadian hard wheat have been bought in the United States because no credit could be obtained from our Government in Canada, the $25,000,000 credit which had been granted to Belgium only being available for the purchase of manufactured goods, which were not needed in an industrial country. To-day on account of lack of credit in Canada the Belgian Government is unable to fill its requirements in Canada, and would at present place its orders here, which amounts to, between 20,000 and 30,000 tons monthly, if credit could be obtained.
I believe it would be to the advantage of the whole of Canada, to do anything possible in this line, in order to secure that market and it is with that object in view that X have exposed this situation,
I hold this information from high authorities in Belgium and would apreciate it if you kept me posted by wire upon any development in this line, to enable me to inform my friends in Belgium.
I hereby authorize you to make - use of this letter whenever required.
Tours sincerely,
( Sgd.) G. POOTMANS.
In this letter we have not only the evidence of partiality, not only an indication of the enormous commissions made by foreign bankers which should have gone into the pockets of our Canadian farmers, but we note above all what we have never ceased to proclaim, that this Government is nothing more or less than the willing instrument of a few citizens of Canada who have contributed to their political success and who are to-day reaping their reward and inspiring and directing the policies of the Government. This Government is today on trial before the people of Canada. Its whole record since 1911 is before the people of this country, and the Government is tottering to its fall. We trust that the day of reckoning is not very far distant, and we await with confidence, when that day does come, the verdict of our fellow countrymen.
Before concluding, I desire to say a word on the amendment presented to the House by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). That amendment meets with my approval because it asserts the principle of Liberalism on fiscal matters. It instantaneously brings before my eyes

a double picture: On one side, the present fiscal policy of the Government, which is drawing the country to the verge of bankruptcy, and, on the other side, the picture of the Liberal policy inaugurated in 1896 and kept in force for fifteen years, the policy that brought to the citizens of this country happiness and prosperity, and created harmony between province and province, and between race and race,-that harmony which, in my opinion, is needed to instil into the hearts and minds of all Canadians the one thought that we should all have, namely, the common good of our common country.


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton) :: The speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), this afternoon so clearly answered all the arguments that have been, and can be, advanced by the Opposition that I hardly think it necessary to make any reply to the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Pacaud). His arguments were all answered in anticipation. Now, this House listened with more than ordinary interest to the Budget speech delivered on Monday,'and the House and the country are both taking an increasing interest in budget speeches. The present Budget speech, I think, was awaited with more than ordinary interest by the country at large, in view of the investigations made by the Tariff Commission which, it was expected, would result in some revision of the tariff. During the past few months there has been a very decided change in public opinion on this question, and the feeling has been rapidly growing that the time is most inopportune for any drastic changes in our customs duties. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in his investigations during his tour across the country came to the same conclusion, and I wish to congratulate him on his masterful presentation of the financial affairs of the country. May I also compliment him on the success he has had during the past year in making revenue and expenditure meet.
We have a huge debt of $2,350,000,000, largely incurred in the defence of the country, and I am sure that every citizen will agree that the safety of Canada is well worth the expenditure of that money. While we do regret the fact that our 9 p.m. debt is so tremendous, still I do not believe any one would criticise the expenditures that were necessary for our participation in the war. Every citizen of this country shares equally in the blessings of peace and liberty, purchased by the blood of our sons and the money which IMr. Pacaud.]
we spent, and every citizen therefore owes it to the state cheerfully to shoulder his fair share of the burdens that come to us after having won the war. We need a revenue many times greater than was necessary in pre-war days, and I think this fact is readily conceded by both sides of the House. The only question in dispute is as regards the method by which we should raise that revenue. The ordinary citizen will defend his pocket almost as fiercely as he would his life, and any injustice in the matter of taxation, whether fancied or real, is a cause of resentment and dissatisfaction. But the people of this country, if they are properly informed, are perfectly willing to pay their taxes, and if the country is to remain solvent, it must pay its debts. Now, the Government has but one way of raising money, that is, by means of taxes from the people themselves. One of the essentials of taxation is that the method be as simple as possible, in order that the average citizen may be made fully to realize his duty and to appreciate his personal responsibility to the country's obligations.
The task of raising revenue for this country in pre-war days was a very simple one compared with the same task to-day. If the Minister of Finance were required to raise to-day, as in 1897, only $42,000,000, he would consider it a holiday. He would attend to the matter before breakfast and go golfing in the afternoon, leaving the details of such a Budget as that of 1897 to his office boy. The growth of Canada's expenditures since the year 1867 has been steady, and to show what it is to-day, as compared with former periods, I shall give the figures at the end of each decennial period.
Total
Tear Form of Expenditure Expenditure
1868	$ 14,071,000
1877	 32,507,000
1887	  41,504,000
1897	'	42,972,000
1913	 144,556,000
1917 Ordinary. $191,815,000 1
War.. ..	306,488,000 1	498,303,000
1920 Ordinary. 397,843,000 1
War.. ..	345,920,000 1	743,763,000
Thus it will be seen that the expenditure *f 1920 was five times as great as that of 1913, and seventeen times as great as that of 1897, when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was Minister of Finance. This shows a huge increase in public expenditure since Confederation, and it demonstrates the increasing difficulties which the Minister of Finance to-day encounters in raising the necessary revenue. The sum of $42,000,000 in 1897, and $144,000,000 in

1913 look small compared with $743,000,000 in 1920. In view of these facts, every citizen in the country should cheerfully do his best to help the Minister of Finance to cope with the difficulties of the situation. The minister's task is a stupendous one which requires a big man, and I compliment the country on having the right man in the right place.
The peak has been safely passed; Canada is able to meet all her obligations, and is in better financial position to-day than most of the Allied powers. We can look forward to a material decrease in our annual expenditures, but our funded debt will remain to remind us of the strenuous years through which we have passed. Although our expenditure has increased in such measure since 1867 we have grown in other ways to meet it, and this shows the wonderful progress and the indomitable spirit of the Canadian people. In this regard we emulate the spirit of our soldiers, their prowess, their courage and their self-reliance which enabled them to fill the breach at the battle of Ypres and saved the day for the civilized powers.
A short glimpse of our increase in trade and commerce since 1867 is very interesting. I will give it in decades.
Total Trade Increase Increase Tear Exports & Imports amount percent
18B8	 $119,500,000
1878	
169,500,000	$50,000,000	421888	
190,500,000	21,000,000	121898	
286,000,000	96,000,000	501908	
615,000,000	329,000,000	1151918	
2,548,000,000	1,633.000,000	312
Taking the whole period from 1867 to 1920 the increase was $119,500,000 to $2,351,000,000, an increase of 2,000 per cent. Taking the period from 1900 to 1920, the first twenty years of the present century, our trade increased 600 per cent. Now when we compare these increases with the trade growth of our two most progressive competitors in the commercial world, England and the United States, we find we make a very favourable showing. As I have already mentioned Canada's increase of trade in the first twenty years of this century was 600 per cent. In the same period England had increased 200 per cent , and the United States 473 per cent. Now with regard to England that comparison is possibly not quite fair, because England was at war and her trade and commerce was very much interfered with; but if we take Canada and the United States the comparison is really against the neighbouring republic because they had a better
opportunity to progress. They were three years later in entering the war than the Dominion of Canada, and yet during that period we have a very comfortable margin of 121 per cent of increase during the first period of the twentieth century. If we compare Canada and the United States for the whole period from confederation to the present time, when the two countries were working under similar conditions, we find that we have still a very confortable lead. From 1868 to 1920 the increase of trade in Canada amounted to 2,000 per cent; during the same period the increase of trade in United States, was 1,700 per cent. We therefore lead them in this respect also by 300 per cent. Surely the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who tried to establish the other day that our trade was not increasing to as great a degree as that of these other nations can hardly get over those figures. If he looks up the Canadian Almanac he will find the figures substantially correct; he will also find them in the census returns for the Dominion of Canada.
Now let us take Canadian manufactures during the same period. We find that in 1871 we had capital invested to the amount of $77,964,000. In 1881 the capital invested amounted to $164,957,000, an increase of 111 per cent. In 1891 the capital invested amounted to $331,635,000, an increase of 101 per cent. In 1901 it amounted to $446,916,000, an increase of 34 per cent. In 1911 it had become $1,247,000,000, an increase of 179.15 per cent; while in 1917 it had become $2,786,000,000, an increase of 123 per cent. In 1900 there were 14,650 manufacturers in Canada. In 1917 the number had grown to 34,392, a good deal more than an increase of 100 per cent. These figures surely demonstrate that Canada has been progressing since Confederation to a very marked degree. *
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we examine our increases in population since Confederation, and compare them with the same two countries, we find that our showing is very favourable. The comparison is set forth in the following figures:
Population	Increase
1861	1901 percent
Canada	
3,090,000	5,371,000	73%England	
28,907,000	41,450,000	30%United-States. 38,558,000	75,994,000	97%
This will show that the whole period since 1861 Canada has maintained her position in growth of population with these two countries.

You have frequently heard the expression that the nineteenth century belonged to the United States but the twentieth century would belong to Canada. It is interesting to note, in this connection, that in the first decade of this century Canada has fulfilled that prophecy.
Comparing the population of these same countries between 1901 and 1911, we find: 1911
Canada,	7,206,000, an increase in 10 years
of 34.17%.
England,	45,221,000, an increase in 10 years
of 8.7%.
United States, 91,972,000, an increase in 10 years
of 21. %.
This shows that in the first ten years of this century Canada leads the United States in increase of population by 13 per cent. According to the report of the census commissioners of 1911, our increase of 34.17 per cent was the largest percentage of increase in population of any country in the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am endeavouring to show that our increase in trade and the important increase in the number of manufacturing concerns, the capital invested and the value of the output was far in excess of our growth in population and cannot be ascribed to that source.
As I have shown, our trade increased
2,000	per cent since 1868 while the manufacturing industry increased from a few industries in 1867 and a capital of $77,000,000 in 1871 to the respectable showing of 34,392 concerns, having a capital of $2,786,649,000 in 1917. The fact that our population increased during the same period by 101 per cent clearly shows that we must look to other causes than the increase in population for an explanation of the rapid rise of Canada in the economic and industrial world. It is not a question of mere numbers.
We may very reasonably, I think, find some of the causes in the country itself. There are several factors, to my mind, that can reasonably be regarded as contributory causes of our growth,-first, the country itself; second, the character of the people; third, our fiscal policy and fourth, the extraordinary events of the last six years.
Canada of course is the greatest factor in our growth. Without natural resources to produce wealth no people could progress. You cannot trade with other nations unless you have something they need and want. Canada has the territory, the soil, the natural resources, the raw material, the products of which other people want

and in that respect she is the richest nation, per capita, in the world.
Our people are energetic, self-reliant, and progressive and are awakening to a sense of nationhood. The fiscal policy pursued since 1878 has done much to develop that sentiment. It has fostered our manufacturing industries, stimulated agriculture and produced a spirit of commercial independence and self-reliance that is beginning to give results-indeed, has given results.
The Great War with its imperative demands for extraordinary effort to meet the exigencies of a perilous situation spurred our people to superhuman efforts in all lines of industry that had been established largely through the protective policy pursued during the last forty-three years. Germany was preparing during all that time for the Great War and apparently Canada was too-the one intentionally the other unconeiously.
Had our agricultural and (manufacturing industries not been fostered our war effort, of which we are so justly proud, would have been impossible. Our manufacturing plants were soon changed to a war basis for the making of munitions and our	agricultural industry
was	stimulated	to make	up thedeficiency	in	food due to	wastage
and lessened production in other lands. We were thus enabled to take advantage of the extraordinary world conditions, and our trade increased enormously. With the impetus given and the prestige acheived we have been able to increase our trade and advance our position in the world to a very marked degree. Canada has all the elements of greatness in a superlative degree. We have a vast extent of territory to be settled by immigrants from the British Isles and the teeming centres of Europe. I am not in sympathy with those who would shut our doors in the face of the newcomer. Population doubled in the next quarter of a century is the solution for our national debt and our railway problem. I believe in stimulating immigration from the British Isles and northern Europe. I believe in admitting only those who are physically fit and mentally sound so far as a rigid medical examination at the ports of entry can ascertain. I believe in having a standard of education for the immigrant before giving him full citizenship rights, and I would not give him those rights until he had resided here for five or ten years. Our climatic conditions are such that they will attract the most virile

races from northern Europe, and I feel every confidence that we can develop on this part of the North American continent a nation that will be able to hold its own with the best in the world.
So far as the future of Canada is concerned, I am a consistent full time optimist. We have a great variety of natural resources to be conserved for future generations of Canadians. I believe that our raw materials should be manufactured here in order that we may be able to build up a self-sustaining independent nation, so far as it is possible to be independent having regard to our international obligations. I would not carry out any selfish policy in this regard. I believe that we cannot shut ourselves off from the rest of the world, and that we should have due regard for the needs of civilization. We have transportation facilities furnished by nature which reach to the very centre of the Dominion. The Hudson bay and our Great Lakes, assisted by engineering skill, will some day settle the question of getting the produce from our great Prairie Provinces cheaply and expeditiously to the markets of the world. Our natural resources in land, forest, stream and mine are so multifarious that they lend themselves to all kinds of human effort, and they should be developed as a whole the one assisting the other. A one-sided development would be fatal. The manufacturing industry and agriculture should go together. To be independently great, a country must be able to minister to the wants of its people, not only with regard to the necessities of life but also the comforts of life, and this Canada will be able to do if our natural resources are developed on truly progressive lines. This is one of the lessons taught us by the great war. When we were cut off from the manufactured products of Europe we realized that we were using many manufactured articles which we could produce at home. Although our basic industry is agriculture-and it should be stimulated to its highest perfection- we should not lose sight of the fact that a prosperous agricultural community depends upon the growth of our manufacturing industries to absorb the products of its soil and minister to its wants. We should also remember that prosperous manufacturing industries depend on the prosperity of the agricultural community. Although foreign market is absolutely necessary for our surplus products, the home market is indispensable. It is always here, and it is regulated by supply and demand. And I might say that I am not in favour of Government control of prices. The ill-fated Board of Commerce in its short career-and it was none too short- demonstrated absolutely the futility of regulating prices by Government control. Government control of the prices of selected commodities, while others are left free, is an abuse of authority and creates discontent. I believe the Board of Commerce will not be revived, and I hope that it will not be. These are some of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why Canada has kept pace with other countries and maintained and improved her position, and they are the reasons which will cause us to forge ahead in the future, if we are wise enough to abstain from the free trade heresies of the Opposition.
With regard to protection, that is the policy which I believe will make us independent. I am not a high protectionist; I believe in moderate protection which, as the Prime Minister has said, will enable our industries to maintain their position and not be put out of business by foreign concerns. The fact that this policy has been kept in force by both the great parties while they have been in office since 1878 ought to be evidence to any person that it is the best policy for Canada. During that time it has been endorsed by the people every five years, showing that the majority of the electorate are in favour of a protective policy. But as experience has not convinced some members opposite, I am going to give a few extracts from speeches of prominent Liberals in years gone by, who in certain measure at all events were in favour of protection. In looking for some of these extracts I naturally went back to the time when the now famous National Policy was introduced. I read some of the speeches made between 1876 and 1879, and curiously enough in a speech delivered by the late Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright I came upon a passage which I consider a very good argument in favour of protection, although he gave it as an argument in opposition to it. This passage will be found at page 446 of Hansard of 1879. It was delivered by Sir Richard Cartwright in reply to the Budget speech of the late Sir Leonard Tilley in the first Parliament after the initiation of the National Policy. Sir Richard said:
This tariff! assuredly cannot stand.
In the light of forty-three years' experience hon. members opposite will be able

to see how great a prophet Sir Richard Cartwright was. He continues:
Manufacturers will obtain no permanent relief from it.
That, too, in the light of forty-three years' experience, indicates again what kind of a prophet Sir Richard was. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not agree with that. They have been saying for a number of years, particularly the years when they were in opposition, that the manufacturers were receiving too much permanent relief from the tariff. They have been talking a great deal about the "big interests," and I notice the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Pacaud) also gave them his attention. It is a notable fact that hon. members opposite had nothing to say about the big interests when they were in power. Evidently it makes quite a difference whether they are in opposition or in power. Sir Richard continues :	.
For one, two or three years they-thp manufacturers-may succeed in mailing considerable profit out of the operations of the tariff, but in the end they will find that it was the greatest misfortune to encourage the undue home competition which will inevitably take the place of the foreign competition of which they complain.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I contend that that is a very good argument in favour of protection. In fact, it was the reason given by the late Sir John Macdonald for the introduction of the National Policy. He claimed, as members on this side of the House still claim, that protection would bring the foreign manufacturers to Canada and induce them to establish their plants here, which would give employment to our artisans and create a market for our farm products. That is exactly what has been done in the past and what it is claimed will be done to-day, and yet Sir Richard Cartwright gave it as an argument against protection. Surely, he was in error when he said that undue competition created at home would put our manufacturers out of business. I should say that any manufacturing concern, which in the same country and under the * same conditions, could not compete with its neighbour, should go out of business; there is something wrong with it. Either there is inefficient management, or they are turning out an inferior product, one which the people will not buy.
Sir Richard Cartwright certainly was no protectionist. In order that hon. gentlemen may not think he was a protectionist I will read to you what he said in 1890.

Sir Richard Cartwright was afterwards Minister of Trade and Commerce in the Cabinet of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He said:
i stand by the declaration I have made that protection is nothing more than deliberate, legalized and organized robbery.
That shows that Sir Richard Cartwright was no protectionist. On page 110 of Hansard of 1876 the Hon. Mr. Paterson made certain remarks with regard to protection. Hon. gentlemen know who Mr. Paterson was; I believe he was in the Cabinet formed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1896 and he it was who, with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, negotiated the Reciprocity Pact in 1911. Mr. Paterson said:
I am not a protectionist. . . . but I must admit I am in favour of a defensive policy.
That is very interesting at this time, when it is obvious that we should initiate a defensive policy against the principles enunciated by the Young Bill which has been introduced into the House of Representatives in the United States, embodying the policy of increasing the tariff duties against Canada. I assume that if the Hon. Mr. Paterson were alive to-day he would advocate an increase in our tariff duties. When in 1876 he made the statement to which I have referred, Canada was in the midst of the most serious trade depression which she has ever experienced. So great was it that Parliament gave it special consideration, and in 1875 a resolution was introduced into the House and a committee appointed "to inquire into the causes of the present depression in the manufacturing, mining, commercial, shipping, lumbering, and fishing interests." The report of that committee can be found in the journals of the House for the session of 1876. In that report it was stated that "the causes of the depression are quite beyond legislative control in this country." Sir Richard Cartwright, although in favour of a defensive policy, sat in the House at that time, with the report of that committee before him, and made no effort in a legislative way to remove the trade depression in Canada. At that time the farmers were receiving about eight cents a dozen for their eggs and ten cents a pound for their butter. But Mr. Paterson continued, page 111 of Hansard of 1876, as follows:
The Administration should protect our agricultural interests. .	.	. The other year the
Finance Minister in revising th? tariff gave some encouragement to an industry which we never had before. The result was that a thousand

men who were engaged in that industry in Germany were literally transported, by the change in the tariff, to Canada and set to work here. The cost of the article was not increased one iota, and Canada got all the benefit.
Surely that is a splendid argument in favour of protection. The probability of bringing to this country from Germany a whole manufacturing industry, with its employees, their wives and families- perhaps five thousand people in all- creating a market for our home produce and not increasing the price of the article in question, is the strongest argument you could use in favour of protection.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that manufactures which are suited to the country, in respect of which we have the raw material to be turned into the finished product, should be protected. It is in our own interests that these manufactures should be protected. Protection is of use to the manufacturer, but unless it can be proved that it is of use to the whole country as well it is untenable as a policy. I do not support protection simply in the interests [DOT]of the manufacturers; I support it in the interests of the whole country, those of the farming community included. It certainly can be established that the farming interests of this country are in favour of protection. I know that the farmers in my own county, whether engaged in mixed farming, fruit growing, or dairying, are largely in favour of protection. Those engaged in the fruit growing industry are, I think, without exception, in favour of protection. I have had many conferences with them, and they have so expressed themselves. The experience of the Tariff Commission as it passed through the farming communities certainly goes to show that the farmers are alive to the benefits and advantages of protection.
Now, in 1854 Canada had a reciprocity treaty with the United States. It was to operate for a period of ten years and was renewable, but could be abrogated by either party giving one year's notice. From 1861 to 1864 the United States was in the throes of civil war, and in 1864 they notified Canada that they intended to abrogate that treaty, which they did in January, 1865. The reasons which they put forth for abrogating the treaty can be found in the Congressional Globe of 1863; they were presented during the course of the debates that took place in the House of Representatives of the United States by several members who spoke to the resolution in favour of the abrogation of the treaty. One of the first reasons given
for the abrogation of the treaty was that the United States needed more revenue to meet the excessive cost of the war, and in order that they might be able to meet the extraordinary expenses and the great need for revenue, the duties which had been taken away by the reciprocity treaty should be restored. Surely that argument suits Canada to-day. We have recently emerged victorious from a great war. We have a great expenditure, a large debt to meet, a large revenue to raise; consequently we need the taxes and we need the revenue. If in 1865 the United States, with 40,000,000 people, needed protection against a country of three and one half millions- which was the population of Canada at that time-surely in 1921 the people of Canada, numbering eight millions, need protection against a people of 110,000,000. We are in a worse position to-day than the United States was in 1865; and yet that was the attitude they took.
The second reason given by the American Congress for the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty was that they wanted to check the flow of imports and increase their own exports in order that the American dollar might be brought back to prewar value as soon as possible. Surely that argument is applicable to Canada's position to-day. Exchange was running high against the United States in 1865; I believe the value of their dollar depreciated to about 60 cents-worse than ours at the present time. Accordingly, the means they adopted to bring their dollar back to its pre-war value was to raise their tariff against imports, thus excluding imports and increasing the revenue. Exchange is running high against us to-day; we need to check the flow of imports into Canada.
The other reason given by the Americans was that they considered it a wise policy and in the interests of the country that they should take every means to build up American industries in order to keep American labour and American money in their own country and thus provide a market for the production of their farmers and employment for their people. That is another argument which applies to Canada to-day. We need to practise the same policy; we need to build up our manufacturing industries, to have a market for our farm produce and to keep our people at home.
I submit that members of the Opposition who vote for the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) are necessarily supporting

the view that we can get along with less revenue. The amendment sets forth no means of furnishing the revenue which would be taken away through the removal of customs duties. The hon. leader of the Agrarian party (Mr. Crerar) says that he would put a tax on land values throughout Canada and thus make up the loss in revenue occasioned by the reduction in duties. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) fails to state by what means he would make up that loss.
I have mentioned casually the home market, and I believe the home market is indispensable to the Canadian farmer. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) would do away with our home market; he would practically put it out of existence for the Canadian farmer by introducing free trade. The other day he mentioned that he would remove the tariff duty on fruit and that, by that means, he would assist in paying the deficit on the Canadian National Railways. He would aid the Canadian National Railways by having them bring in the strawberry in the spring and take back the juicy grape in the fall. The hon. member for Red Deer would actually ask the fruit growers of the Dominion of Canada to pay the deficit on our National Railways. I think the hon. gentleman would not be well received if he preached that doctrine in the fruit-growing sections anywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If that policy were brought into effect, the fruitgrowing sections of the Maritime Provinces, Ontario and British Columbia would be ruined. The hon. member's vision of the extent of this country is limited by the horizon which is revealed to him as he looks across the undulating prairies, and in that way he views the fruit sections of this country. The home market was indispensable in the opinion of John Charlton who, in 1876, said, as reported on page 313 of Hansard of that year:
I believe that the interests of the nation at large would be promoted by judicious protection ; I believe that the agricultural interests of the Dominion would be promoted by protection, and that the manufacturer, being brought to the door of the farmer, would afford a market for a great -many articles of produce that would not be salable if the market were 3,000 miles away.
Surely, that is good argument in favour of the home market. The constituency which I represent is interested in mixed farming and fruit-growing. The fruit-growing industry is in close proximity to our Ontario cities. Fruit, especially small fruit, is a perishable product and it must be marketable quickly to ensure full returns. Most of it is sold in the cities of Hamilton,

Toronto or Montreal, and without these cities the fruit business would languish and die. Large quantities are also sold to the canning companies in the county as well as those in the neighbouring cities.
I am sorry that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) is not in his seat. These fruit growers are badly handicapped on account of lack of railway transportation, and, apparently, the railways do not cater to this trade. These fruit growers need refrigerator cars to enable them to get their fruit into the cities and larger towns of northern Ontario, and I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals will take the matter into consideratihn when he gets hold of the Grand Trunk and will see that these people have better facilities in this regard.
The whole southern section of the county of Halton, stretching along the shore of lake Ontario, is the finest fruit-growing district in America. All kinds of fruits and vegetables are grown and sold in the nearby cities and without these cities the fruitgrowing industry in Halton would be nil. For these industries the home market is the only market as they could not compete in the American market with American producers on account of the increased cost of production and the following reasons, namely:-
(1)	The American fruit is two or three weeks earlier on the market, and the cream of the prices is gone before our .fruit is ready for sale.
(2)	The cost of production is less in the United States on account of climatic conditions-less labour is necessary to protect the tender plants from frost in the winter and spring. The Canadian grower must provide himself with frame-yard room and sash and fertilizer to grow his seedling plants and protect them from the chilling winds of spring. This is not necessary or as expensive in a warmer climate.
(3)	Top dressing with straw, involving time and labour, is absolutely essential in this country and not necessary in the United States. The Canadian producer must also employ his help longer in the year on account of these extra precautions, and that adds materially to the cost of the article as compared with the cost in North and South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and New York. x
If we open our markets to American fruit, the early market of the spring would be entirely in the hands of the American fruit-grower and by the time our fruit came in, the cream of the prices would be

reaped by the American producer. The first fruit in the spring is always the sweetest and the people will buy at prices that would not tempt them in another two or three weeks, when the appetite has become sated. Take off the duty on fruits and allow our market to be flooded in early May, and you will ruin the small fruit industry, not only in Ontario, but for that matter in the Dominion of Canada.
The section of Ontario along the shore of lake Ontario from Toronto to Hamilton, and including the whole Niagara peninsula is a veritable Garden of Eden, not surpassed in beauty and prosperity and in sturdy citizenship anywhere in the British Empire. In ruining the fruit industry in this section, you will strike a deadly blow at the future of the cities and towns in western Ontario, and throw out of employment thousands of persons engaged in the industry. Bound up in the fruit industry is the future of the canning industries of western Ontario. They buy the raw material from the gardeners in their vicinity, give' employment to many hands, and get the perishable product of the gardener into the foreign market many months after it is picked. But for this, the gardener would be compelled to produce less or allow his product to spoil in the fields. Some of the gardeners in the southern section of the county of Halton sold as high as $10,000 worth of fruit to these canning industries in one year. The fruit business is their principal industry and to destroy the market for their produce would be a very decisive blow to something over .three thousand people who are producing the raw material for these industries.
There are forty-two canning plants in Canada with an approximate output of $16,000,000 per annum, employing in the busy season, three thousand people and buying raw material from approximately five thousand farmers. Fully one-half of these fruit-canning plants are products of the war, when the British manufacturer was compelled by war conditions to withdraw his product from our market. The increase in six years in the canning industry in Canada is a marked indication of the benefit a proper system of protection is to the building up of industry in this country.
In the county of Halton the agricultural interests have something like $22,000,000 invested in farms; farm buildings and implements. In 1919, the total product of the farms, that is of grain, cattle and dairy
products, amounted to $7,984,431. This does not include fruit, vegetables and a large variety of other products which the farmers sell, which would bring the total up to approximately $10,000,000. Our manufacturing establishments in that county number 119, the capital invested is $7,711,441, the number of employees is 1,657; the salaries paid, $1,448,814; the value of the raw material used, $4,810,281 and the value of the finished products, $8,781,804.
If you take away protection from this country, a deadly blow will be dealt to these industries. I sent out questionnaires to most of them, and in not a single instance did I receive a reply that any of them wanted the protective duties reduced. They all said that they were satisfied with the protective tariff as it was to-day.
With regard to protection, where do hon. members opposite stand? We have heard a great deal about the policy of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and it is very hard to make out what that policy is. The leader of the Agrarian or Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) is more definite in his statements; he is frankly a free trader. He has said so on many occasions, and I do not believe that he wishes to get away from his statements. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) when, as Finance Minister in 1897, he delivered his first Budget speech, placed on Hansard, this " resolution." He said:
We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people and we declare our conviction that any tariff which is based on that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours.
That was placed on Hansard on April 22, 1897. I believe the hon. member was speaking not only for himself but for his party. That was a direct, definite statement that he was opposed to protection; yet he remained as Minister of Finance of this country for fifteen years, and during all that period he made not one effort to put his policy into effect. I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman really meant. He certainly could not have been sincere, and I often wonder if he is sincere to-day in the amendment which he has introduced into this House. I cannot, nor can anybody else, blame the people of this country if they look with a good deal of suspicion upon the policy presented by the hon. gentleman. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1893, after the convention at Ottawa, said:

I will not be satisfied until the last vestige of protection is removed from the soil of Canada.
Yet he remained in power fifteen years and during that time did hot bring in any measure of free trade or give any relief from the protective duties which he claimed were hurting the country. In 1911 his Government went out of power, and speaking in Hamilton shortly afterwards on November 26, 1913, he said:
The policy I give you at this moment, the policy I believe every patriot in Canada ought to support, and the policy I believe it to be the duty of the Government to immediately inaugurate, is a policy of absolutely free food-free from customs duties.
That is what he said less than two years after he had gone out of power. Yet he had been in power fifteen years and had not made the slightest effort to put that policy into effect. I do not charge him with insincerity; possibly he had a change of heart after he left Ottawa as Prime Minister of this country.
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) takes a peculiar stand on the policy of protection. The fact is nobody knows what his policy is. Judging by his speeches in this House and outside it is absolutely impossible to come to any definite decision as to what he wants. Speaking in Toronto on August 16, 1920, he is reported in the Toronto Globe as saying:	*
It is not a question of free trade or protection.
You will notice that he made no explanation of what he really did mean. It was not a policy of free trade or protection, at all events. Further on he said:
But such a tariff as may be necessary in this connection will be under Liberal policy a tariff for consumers and producers and not a tariff to further the interests of combines, monopolies or any special or priviliged classes.
The hon. gentlman, now that he is in Opposition, speaks a lot of the special and privileged classes, but he forgot those classes when he was in power at Ottawa. I do not think the leader of the Opposition can blame the people of this country if they do not support him and his policy, and if they fail to understand it, for apparently he cannot explain it himself. He will find that the people of this country are not so easily deceived by a policy which tells them nothing, and I believe that when the time comes for the people to express their opinion at the polls they will express their dissatisfaction with the hon. gentleman in that respect.

The hon. leader of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), in speaking in different places in Canada, has had something to say on the tariff issue. Speaking at Brandon on November 29, 1919, he is reported by the Canadian Countryman to have said:
The policy of protection is the greatest curse and drawback we could have in Canada.
I think the hon. member must have been reading one of the speeches of Mr. Davies, now Sir Louis Davies, who used a very similar expression in 1893 when speaking on the protective policy. Speaking in Massey Hall, Toronto, on December 17, and 18, at the Convention of the United Farmers of Ontario, the hon. member for Marquette is quoted in the Canadian Farms as saying:
The protection tariff confers privileges upon those who are beneficiaries of it, and for that reason the organized farmers of Canada are opposed to the principle of protection in our tariff.
The organized farmer of Canada in the mind of the hon. leader of the Agrarian party are evidently the United Grain Growers of Western Canada. The leader of the Agrarian party is certainly a free trader. He cannot get away from the statements that he has made on free trade in various parts of the country, and if he is elected to power at the next general election, he will be expectd to carry his policy into effect. If he does not do so, he will be betraying the farmers of Western Canada, who honestly believe in free trade and are supporting him on that issue. If he becomes the Prime Minister of this country I am satisfied that he will introduce a certain measure of free trade.
I have before me the Farmers' platform, as announcd by the Canadian Council of Agriculture at Winnipeg on November 29, 1918. It contains a good many planks but I shall read only those or sections of those that deal with the tariff issue. Speaking of the tariff it says:
Our tariff laws should be amended as follows: (a) by an immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff; (b) by reducing the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual, uniform reductions be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years.
That surely is a free trade policy. It cannot be considered as anything else, and the hon. leader of the Agrarian party will certainly try to implement that platform if he has any influence in this Parliament after the next election.

Now I desire to draw attention to some circumstances in connection with the United Grain Growers' Grain Company. The hon. member for Frontenac ;(Mr. Edwards) made some mention of this company a few days ago. I shall make some further mention of it, and in one instance, at least, I shall disagree with what the hon. member for Frontenac said.
The United Grain Growers Limited was formed in September, 1917, by an amalgamation between the Grain Growers Grain Corporation and the Alberta Farmers Co-operative Elevator Company, with an authorized capital of $5,000,000, with shares of par value of $25, and no member allowed to have more than 100 shares, the average holdings being 10 shares, amounting to $250.
At the end of 1918 they had a paid up capital of $2,159,763, subscribed capital $2,891,050, reserves and undistributed profits, $1,872,746, making a total of capital and reserves at the end of 1918 of $4,032,509.
The officers of the company are T. A. Crerar, M.P., President, Cecil Rice-Jones, Manager and First Vice-President, J. R. Murray, Winnipeg, and E. S. McRory, Calgary, District Managers.
The Company has under its control and ownership several subsidiary companies, namely:
I.	The Grain Growers Export Company of New York.
II.	The Grain Growers Export Company of Winnipeg.
III.	The U.G.G. Sawmills Ltd. & Timber Limits, B.C.
IV.	The U.G.G. of New Westminster, B.C. (Feed Business).
V.	The U.G.G. Securities Corporation.
VI.	Live Stock Dept.
VII.	Educational and Legislative organization comprising:	(a) The Public
Press, Ltd., Winnipeg, Job Printing, (b) The Grain Growers Guide.
The Company has 35,000 shareholders, divided into 350 clubs, having approximately 100 members each, scattered over the Canadian West. These shareholders pay this money into the Company, and receive stock certificates drawing 10 per cent on the par value of the stock.
I have copied these statements from the sworn evidence given by Mr. Cecil Rice-Jones before the High Cost of Living Committee in Room 318 of the House of Commons, on Friday, June 27, 1919. This company engages in a large number of businesses, under the name of the principal company, such as the implement business, the flour business, coal, lumber,' apples, and other supplies, including binder twine, barbed wire, wire fencing, salt, hay. I believe they are also engaged in the insurance business.
I disagree with the statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac a few days ago with regard to the Export Company of New York. The hon. member for Frontenac said-I believe he took his figures from the sworn testimony of Mr. Cecil Rice-Jones-that on a capital of $100,000 this company had made a profit of something over 500 per cent. Now in looking over the company's annual report for 1915, I find that there was a $50,000 investment in the export company, and that the company made a profit in 1915 of
531,000,	which amounted to 1060 per cent on the total paid up capital. In 1916, they put into the capital of the export company a certain amount of earnings from the year 1915, increasing the capital to $250,000 and in that year they made a profit of 130 per cent. In the next year, 1917, they made a profit of 66 per cent. Now that is pretty good for one of the subsidiary companies, but I would not object to these profits were it not for the statements made by hon. members opposite in this House.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: Will you be kind enough to tell the House what amount of money was borrowed from the Bank of New York to conduct the business with?


Robert King Anderson: I was not in communication with the Bank of New York, and as the annual report does not give that statement, I cannot inform the hon. member. He should have seen that it appeared in the Annual Report of 1915; if it were in the report I should be glad to read it to him. The Grain Growers' Company, the parent company, the owner of all the subsidiary companies, according to the sworn testimony of Mr. Cecil Rice-Jones, vice-president and manager, given before a committee of this House, made profits in the year 1916 of 66.2 per cent on paid-up capital. The hon. member for Frontenac, said it was 62.6 per cent, but the difference is small in any event, and either of us may be wrong. In 1917, according to the same testimony, they made profits amounting to 44.92 per cent on paid-up capital, and in 1918, 19.7 per cent on paid-up capital.
I would not object to these profits, Mr. Speaker, but for the statements made by members of the Agrarian party. In 1920,



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), in answer to a question asked by a member on this side of the House, said he considered that any company that made over 30 per cent profit on capital was profiteering. The hon. member for Assiniboia, I think, is a shareholder in this company, although he may not be a director, and I should like to know what he thinks of these profits of 66 per cent, 44 per cent, and 130 per cent in his own company. In 1912, the, company had a capital of $586,000, and, so far as I can ascertain, they had no reserve. But in 1918, the capital was more than $2,159,000. The reserve in that year was $1,898,282. During this period of six years the company paid to the Farmers' Organization for political propaganda purposes the sum of $82,200, and invested, in the export company, dividends to the extent of $375,000, thus making total earnings, above expenses, and 10 per cent on capital of some $2,355,982, which is more than 100 per cent on their capital of 1918, and 325 per cent on the original capital of 1912.
That is a very good showing, and proves that the company is a very successful concern. But these items represent surplus earnings during these six years which have been taken out of the pockets of the people who do business with them. The people who do business with the company are not all shareholders and do not participate in the 10 per cent dividend, and the company is not what it claims to be, a philanthropic concern doing business for the benefit of the people of the country, because they are taking out of the pockets of the people more than is necessary to run their business. I think, strictly speaking, this surplus belongs to the shareholders of the company hut it is held by the directors, and cannot be paid out unless the company is wound up.
Now, Sir, I think it is obvious that this company is a cold business corporation doing business for profit in competition with other corporations and individuals in this country, and is by no means a philanthropic concern as hon. members on the other side claim. Their operations may have the effect of reducing the cost of living to a certain extent, but, if they do, it is in the same way as any other corporation in the open market may be said to reduce the cost of living to the Consumer as a result of competition. The organization department consists of the
10 p.m. United Farmers of Alberta, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers'

Association, and the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association which, in the words of Mr. Rice-Jones, " is the educational and legislative end of the farmers' end of the association." The Grain Growers' Guide is the mouthpiece of this organization department and is the medium used to educate the people. Grants amounting to $82,500, were made to these different branches during the years preceding and including 1917. '
I wish to draw attention to another circumstance. Some years ago the company conceived the idea, which was a very useful one, of organizing what is called the Canadian Council of Agriculture for the purpose of bringing all these variotis associations and joint stock companies into one organized body for the purpose of increasing the benefits to themselves, of getting better markets for their grain, and of getting legislation through the parliaments of the western provinces of the Dominion, favourable to themselves. I do not quarrel with that. They had a perfect right to do so, and if the farmers by such an organization could improve their conditions, I am in favour of it. This Canadian Council of Agriculture is composed of executive officers and the following associations: The United Farmers of Alberta, the Alberta Co-operative Elevator Company, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company, the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association, the Grain Growers' Grain' Company, the Grain Growers' Guide, and the United Farmers of Ontario, the United Farmers' Co-operative Company, of Ontario, representing 65,000 farmers distributed over the Canadian West and Ontario. The executive officers of these various companies and associations form the Canadian Council of Agriculture, which drafted the farmers' platform. The Canadian Council of Agriculture is the executive of the United Farmers' or Progressive party. I am not taking exception to that organization being the executive of their party. The leader of the Farmers' party (Mr. Crerar), is president of the Grain Growers' Grain Company. He is in the House as representative of the Independent Farmers' party and as representative of the Grain Growers' Grain Company. On March 25, 1919, the Council of Agriculture discussed the question whether or not they Should enter into politics. This matter must have been discussed on various occasions, but I refer to the year 1918, and a report of* that discussion will be found in their

annual report for that year. I might explain that apparently the company had sent a delegation to the United States to inquire into the farmer organizations there to see how they were getting along with their political work, and they were making a report I presume to the company. The report says:
One of the main reasons given by the officers of the organization in several of the states was that in our Canadian organization we have not mixed in politics but have used our strength to influence legislation that was in the interests of the farmer and the people of Canada in general, while they state in most of their organizations in the United States there has been an inclination to organize their associations into political associations taking an active part in politics. This fact has been more responsible for wrecking the farming organizations in the United States than anything else.
Then they go on to state:
In spite of the efforts of the organization to the south of us in the political field we can safely, state that more legislation favourable to farmers and in the interest of the people of Canada has been passed in the three western provinces than all the twelve states we visited.
That was the opinion of the Canadian Council of Agriculture in the fall of 1918; they came to the decision they had better not enter into politics. Yet in spite of that decision what have we witnessed? On March 25, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MpMaster) introduced an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply which proposed the acceptance of the Reciprocity Pact with the United States providing for free trade in foods, in natural products, and in agricultural implements. In speaking to that amendment the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar)-then the Minister of Agriculture in the Union Government-said this:
"If the amendment were accepted It would mean the overthrow of the Government and a general election, with all the necessary turmoil that woultj ensue. I say that it would mean the launching of this country into a general election, and that is not desirable at this stage. It is wholly undesirable for several reasons, which I do not need to enumerate. This amendment is introduced for no other reason than to embarrass the Government in carrying on the business of the country."
The hon member supported the Government at that time and voted against the amendment in order to prevent the Government from being defeated. If we examine the situation then we will see that the country had just come through the war, the demobilization of the army was well under way, reconstruction was well advanced, the country was at peace and everything was favourable. The Government was in a strong position, it had
213i
a large majority in the House and apparently it was not the desire of the hon. member to oppose the Government and attempt to defeat it. But what do we find a couple of months later? On June 9, of the same year, the hon. member for Brome introduced his amendment of March 25, as an amendment to the Budget then brought down by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White.) But at that time the hon. member for Marquette was no longer a member of the Government and he voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Brome that he had voted against two months previously, in order that the country might be thrown into the turmoil of a general election, which he had stated, only two months before, was wholly undesirable.
The propositions introduced in that Budget went further in reducing the tariff on agricultural implements than the Fielding tariff had gone in fifteen years. It remitted seventeen and a half millions of customs taxation and imposed taxes on the wealthy; yet the hon. member for Marquette opposed all this and tried to force the country into a general election.
Now I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the coincidence of the resignation of the honourable member as Minister of Agriculture, the appearance of the Farmers' political party and the Winnipeg strike.
On May 15 a sympathetic strike involving ninety-five unions was called in the city of Winnipeg, resulting in a complete tie-up of business, a declaration of control over civic affairs and an effort to control provincial and federal employees. The object of the strikers was to control municipal government in the city of Winnipeg when sympathetic strikers in various cities of the Canadian West 'would take control of the Provincial Governments. The condition became so serious that revolution was threatened and the future of Canada was imperilled.
So serious was , the situation on June 2 that a resolution was moved in the House of Commons by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the strikes in Winnipeg and other Canadian cities. The hon. member for Kamouraska, in speaking to this resolution, said:
"This debate is one of the most extreme urgency. We have been criticised for not having already discussed in the House this alarming situation."
[Stage Direction]
The honourable member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in speaking upon the same resolution, said this:
""Wc have the spectre of a revolution which first became apparent two weeks ago, appearing like a hydra-headed monster in a dozen Canadian cities."-Hansard, page 3029.
The honourable the Minister of the Interior, at page 3039, is quoted as saying:
"It was essential that the greater issue raised by the assumption of Soviet authority, and it was nothing less on the part of those in control of the strike in the city of Winnipeg, should be once and for all decided and decisively beaten down,"
This statement made in this House was a reflection of what was appearing in the daily press and showed that Canada was passing through the greatest crisis in its history. At no time during the period of the war was there a greater menace to the peace of the country. ,
Yet on June 4, two days after this discussion the honourable the Minister of Agriculture resigned his portfolio, took his place on the cross-benches and announced his decision to withdraw his support from the Government and became the leader of a new political party with the object of defeating the Government and throwing this country into the turmoil of a general election. Had he succeeded, could any one imagine the result? No one could predict what might have happened if the country had been hurled into the turmoil of a general election with an incipient revolution on its hands. The honourable member comes from the West and cannot plead ignorance of the conditions which existed, but as a member of the Government he had a more accurate knowledge of what was transpiring than private members, and had the added advantage of a perfect familiarity with conditions in his home province. This strike took place in the city of Winnipeg where the head office of his company and the offices of the newspapers which he controls were situated, and he must have had inside information on the conditions. I do not charge the honourable member with any sinister motives in timing his resignation to suit these events, neither do I wish to charge him with expecting to ride into power on the wave of revolution which might have resulted, but I do charge him with a decided lack of that foresight and those statesmanlike qualities which are essential to the leader of a political party aspiring to the premiership. The honourable member must have known, had he given the consideration to the national
[Mr. Anderson.)
situation which every public man should, that the time was most inopportune for any attempt to gain a decision at the poles by a political party;' yet he took the plunge, either as a result of ignorance, or from a spirit of bravado, and was only saved by the superior foresight and wisdom of western members, who, seeing eye to eye with him on the tariff issue, yet had a more statesmanlike grasp of the national situation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read the following taken from the Grain Growers' Guide of July 23, 1919:
Trial by Jury Abolished
X°ur civil rights are in danger because tile Government at Ottawa has passed a vicious amendment to the Immigration Act under which citizens not born in Canada may be arrested; tried behind closed doors by a committee appointed by the Government; denied the right of facing their accusers; denied the right of trial by Jury; and deported without the formality of a civil trial. To-day labour men are arrested. To-morrow it may be farmers. To-day men not born in Canada are suffering. To-morrow it may be the Canadian-horn. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If you were accused of a crime how much would you give for the right to be tried by a jury of your peers? Tour right is bound up with that of the labour men who have been arrested in Winnipeg. Do unto others as you would be done unto. Help these men to get a fair trial by sending a donation to
James Law, Secretary.
Defence Committee, Room 12, Labour Temple, Winnipeg.
This article appeared in the Grain Growers' Guide of July 23, 1919, appealing to the farmers of Western Canada for aid in support of the accused and imprisoned strikers in the city of Winnipeg, on the assumption that the strikers had been denied the right of trial by jury. No other meaning can be taken from the appeal.
It was purposely worded so as t(o create that impression. Note the words "Denied the right of trial by jury. To-day labor men are arrested, tomorrow it may be farmers." A more vile appeal has never been made in any newspaper in this country. These men had not been denied any right to which they were entitled as Canadian citizens.
This was known to the managers of the Grain Growers' Guide. They were in close touch with all the events of the strike and knew absolutely the true situation, and yet this newspaper, owned and controlled by the political corporation of which the hon. member for Marquette is president, gave it the sanction of what approval it could get by appearing in that

paper, and sent it broadcast to the sixty thousand readers and subscribers of the paper. Why was this done? Surely the money paid for such an advertisement was hardly sufficient to induce any newspaper to print it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not deny the right of a political party having a newspaper to place its ideals before the people and expound the gospel of its particular political faith, but I do deny the right of a powerful commercial corporation, entering the field as a political party, to attempt to seize the reins of Government to further its own commercial interests. I claim that the attempt of the United Grain Growers' Company to corral the farmers of Western Canada, and use them for political purposes is a subversion of the principles of responsible Government. It is indeed the most daring attempt ever made by a political party in this country to destroy democracy and place in its stead corporate, autocratic rule. The irony of the attempt, the irony of the whole political farce is that it is being done in the name of democracy.
I observed, Mr. Speaker, during the war that those who shouted loudest in the name of democracy were themselves autocrats at heart. Suppose, for instance, that the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is one of the most powerful corporations on the North American continent, decided to go into politics, and succeeded in electing their president, and some of their officials to this House and eventually obtained control of the Government, and the president became Prime Minister. Would the hon. leader of the Agrarian party or the hon. member for Red Deer think that that was right? I am quite satisfied that they would think it was absolutely wrong. And yet that is practically what their party is doing to-day. I shall leave these thoughts with the hon. leader of what shall we call it-the Farmers' party? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a Farmers' party. The sympathy of the great mass of the farmers of Canada is not with the hon. gentleman and his
political methods, nor do they follow him on his platform of free trade and class rule.
The hon. member for Marquette made some references a year ago to the depopulation of rural sections of Ontario. Between 1901 and 1911 the rural population of Ontario decreased about 59,000, but the rural population over the whole of Canada increased. During that period the urban population has gradually increased until in 1911 it exceeded the rural population, but that is bound to occur in any country which develops along all lines of manufacturing industry. The following table will be interesting as showing the gradual increase of the urban with a corresponding decrease of the rural percentage of population in the Dominion and in Ontario for the decades from 1871 to 1911:
	Rural	Urban
Canada-	Per cent	Per cent>
1971	.. .. 81.2	18.81881	.. .. 79.9	21.11891	.... 71.3	28 91901	.. .. 62.4	37.61911	.... 51.4	45.6Ontario-	1871	.. .. 80.6	19.41881	.... 77.2	22.81891	. . . . 66.8	33.21901	.. .. 59.3	40.71911	.... 47.8	52.2
In 1911 it will be seen that the urban population of Ontario was 52.2 per cent, and yet although the farmers claim they have not proper representation in Parliament, they rule in that province. The Hon. Mr. Drury in speaking to the farmers of the county of Halton last fall said to them that they were a minority, and that minority rule is autocratic rule, and that they would have to be satisfied to see their policy carried to fruition by all the .people of the Dominion representing all classes.
In connection with this increased ration of urban as against rural population, I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for Marquette to one of its results. Since 1867 in direct proportion as the cities' population has increased the price of commodities sold from the farm has increased with it. I have here a few figures taken from the Globe of 1867, 1901, and 1921:
Place Commodity Toronto-Wheat..
Oats. . .. Barley.. Hay. . .. Hogs.. . . Beef. . .. Lamb.. . Butter. . Eggs. . . . Chickens. Apples. . Potatoes..
February	February	May1867	1901	1921? 1.80	$ .661	$ 1.9832	,281	.493.59	.42	9013.00	14.50	30.005.25	8.50	20.006.00	8.50	18.003.50 each	.07h lb.	.15 lb..12 lb.	.20 lb.	.61.16	.22	.33.40 pair	.60 pr.	.35 ib.None	2.?5 bbl.	10.00 bbl..35 bag	.85
It will be seen that with the exception of the first three items, every one has increased materially in price since 1867, showing that the increase of urban population has been conducive to the advantage of the farmer by increasing his home market and giving him a better chance to sell his products. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for taking up so much of the time of the House.
An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Robert King Anderson: I hope the hon. member who says "hear, hear" will take up as much time to answer some of these questions, which I am sure the people of this country will be very glad to have answered.


Mr. J. A. MAHARG (Maple Creek) :: Mr. Speaker, before entering into a discussion of the Budget I wish first to direct a few remarks to the address delivered this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), and also a passing remark to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Anderson) who has just preceded me. The Prime Minister gave us a somewhat lengthy address, chiefly in an attempt to ridicule the two parties, as he described them, on the Opposition side of the House, and to create in the minds of the people the idea that there is an amalgamation between the two groups on this side of the House. He made a further attempt, in which he was very successful to win applause from his supporters by his very complete and splendid system of ridicule and sarcasm.
I should have paid no attention whatever to my right hon. friend's reference in this regard had he dealt with the matter fairly. A few months ago the Prime Minister took part in an election in the eastern part of Canada and there he started a campaign of misrepresentation. According to my recollection the campaign of misrepresentation on the part of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat was exceeded only by that of the Prime Minister himself in opening his campaign during the by-election to which I have referred. In his attempt here this afternoon the hon. gentleman undertook to ridicule the progressive group for not placing their platform before the House. , I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman was present at one of the sessions of this House three years ago, when that platform was placed before the House in its entirety. It is on Hansard, and may be seen by any one who wishes to refer to it. I observe that my hon. friend is indulging in another of his sardonic, satirical and cynical smiles, directed toward this group.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that my hon. friends had no platform. What I said was that it had never been moved and the judgment of the House obtained upon it.


John Archibald Maharg: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Government have ever moved their platform in the House? Has the hon. gentleman ever moved his platform?


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly. Our platform is in the Budget and a vote on the Budget is a vote on the platform.


John Archibald Maharg: Well, if my hon. friend can find his platform in the Budget I would like him to draw our attention to it; so far as I am concerned I have not been able to find it. My hon. friend and his supporters have not drawn attention t(5 it and cannot do so, for the simple reason that it is not there. With all his talk, what did my hon. friend say about his platform? He said that the platform of his party was one which would give adequate protection to the industries of Canada-as meaningless a statement as could possibly be made. Who is going to say what is adequate protection to the industries of Canada? Evidently some one is saying it for the hon. gentleman and those who support him on that side of the House.
Now, Sir, I want to go just a little further. The hon. gentleman made some very uncomplimentary remarks with regard to the Progressive party this afternoon. He described them as the tools of the Opposition, as a dilapidated annex, and so on. Well, as to whether or not the Progressive party is in a dilapidated condition, if the hon. Prime Minister will just be good enough to give the country an opportunity to decide that question we shall be perfectly satisfied with the result.
In dealing with the amendment this afternoon the Prime Minister described it as a circuitous sinuosity. It is pretty strong language; but, Sir, if you can find anything more in the nature of circuitous sinuosity than the Prime Minister's address this afternoon-well, you simply could not do so, I would yield the palm to the Prime Minister in that respect now and for all time.
The Prime Minister this afternoon indulged in his usual habit of laying traps, and he succeeded in dropping out bait which was picked up by an hon. member on this side. I am very glad he did, Mr. Speaker, because it gives me an oppor-

tunity to have a little to say in that respect to-night. The hon. gentleman read from a pamphlet; he was not going to tell us just at the moment who the author of the pamphlet was, though, of course he would have done so later had some one not asked the question. He told the House that the author of the pamphlet was Mr. Norman P. Lambert- which, of course, was a sweet morsel under the tongues of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, following his usual custom, he did not go so far as to explain to the House just why that pamphlet was published. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the House tonight just why that pamphlet was published. It was published some time ago. Several pamphlets were prepared by the same gentleman, for those in whose employ he was at that particular time? He was a young man, a journalist starting out in this country. I observe that the Prime Minister is finding great difficulty to keep his seat this evening while I am speaking, just as he did when the hon. member for Red Deer was addressing the House. I hope he will be good enough to let me proceed; I did not interrupt him this afternoon. I simply want to explain how these pamphlets came about. Mr. Lambert, was a young man in the employ of a protectionist newspaper in the city of Toronto, and he had instructions to compile pamphlets having for their purpose the discouragement of any "truck or trade with the Yankees," as it was described at that time. He was a very capable young man, a very good prospect in the journalistic world. He succeeded in carrying out the instruction of his employers and these pamphlets were issued. But, Sir, this young man came to maturity later on and he decided that he would no longer sell his services; that he would write things as he saw them, and he has done that. The great difference between the Prime Minister and Mr. Norman P. Lambert is that Mr. Norman P. Lambert refused to sell his services and sacrifice his principles for the manufacturing and big interests of Canada, while the Prime Minister was representing them at that time, is representing them to-day, and, from all appearances, intends to continue to represent them for all time. Mr. Lambert comes from a family who always, so far as I know, gave very strong support to the Conservative party. He, like a great many others in Western Canada-thousands of them, myself; included- commenced to see that there were
two sides to these questions, and, as they did, got away from the old environment and changed their ideas. At present this young man is working in the interests of the general public; he is not giving himself over to the wishes, the demands, the exactions of those who undertake to carry on a campaign on behalf of the interests to which I have referred.


Mr. HAY:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Archibald Maharg: Yes, I welcome questions from the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Hay: By whom is M. Lambert now employed?


John Archibald Maharg: Mr. Lambert is employed by an institution which believes in absolute freedom to all who have ideas to express. He is working for that institution at this particular time.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the name of it?


John Archibald Maharg: I will give the name. I invite the closest scrutiny of all or any of the articles published by Mr. Lambert since he has come into the employ of that institution. No one can point the finger of derision at or criticise any of those articles. The institution he is working for is the Central Organization of the farmers of Western Canada and of all Canada.


Thomas Hay: Is he paid for it now?


John Archibald Maharg: Certainly he is paid for it. We are not "cheap guys"; we pay our way as we go. We are not financed by such institutions as are financing the so-called Murray campaign.


Thomas Hay: Was he paid for it when he wrote that tract?


John Archibald Maharg: No doubt he was. I do not know who paid him, I am sure, but I imagine that he was paid; otherwise how could he exist? I will say this, Mr. Speaker: he was not paid out of the funds of the organized farmers of Canada.


Thomas Hay: He evidently writes anything that he is paid to write.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is not a
question.


John Archibald Maharg: If the hon. gentleman
wishes to ask questions,' I shall be only too glad to answer them, but I am not going to permit the hon. gentleman or any other hon. gentleman to put words into my mouth. I reserve that right to myself.

I want to go just a little further before I leave the remarks made this afternoon by the Prime Minister. In describing the amendment this afternoon, the Prime Minister, from his words, would indicate that he considered it a protectionist amendment. He cited case after case to show that there was nothing in the amendment to lead one to believe that there would be any reduction in the tariff. Evidently, he is of opinion that it is a protectionist document. A couple of days ago, when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) was speaking in this House, he viewed the amendment with alarm; he claimed that it would put our industries out of business. It would be very wise for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to get together before they start contradicting one another on the floor of the House.
The Prime Minister also gave us another illustration this afternoon in connection with cream separators. He dealt with this particular matter when he was on his tour of Western Canada, and I remember very well, in listening to him at one of the meetings, when he took up the question of cream separators, that he took his favourite pose, he turned to the chairman and he said, "Cream separators, Mr. chairman," as though the name "cream separators," or the manufacture of them, Was a joke. Speaking in this House on the Address in reply to the speech from His Excellency, the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) undertook to talk about cream separators. He was holding forth on a tirade against the United Grain Growers for purchasing their machinery requirements largely in the United States. Amongst other things he illustrated the cream separator industry. He was holding the United Grain Growers up as buying from the United States articles which they could secure in this country. The Prime Minister, in his western tour, told the people of that section of Canada that practically no cream separators were manufactured in this country. As he said, even the United Grain Growers had to go to the United States to secure cream separators. The Prime Minister wanted to leave the impression in the West that, because .[DOT]ream separators were on the free list, no cream separators were manufactured in Canada. The Minister of Militia and Defence undertook to prove to the House that there was an abundance of them manufactured in Canada, and he scored the 
Farmers' organization for not purchasing Canadian made goods when it was possible for them to do so. That is another illustration why they should get together. We want to look into this matter a little further in order to see what there really was in the statement of the Prime Minister in the West, when the most that he would admit was that there were a few assembling plants in Canada. In 1910, we had four establishments manufacturing cream separators, and the value of their output in that year was $639,656. In 1919, nine years later, we had seven cream separator plants working in Canada, and the value of their output had increased from $639,656 to $2,030,093. That does not look as though the cream separator business had been hurt very much in Canada because cream separators were on the free list. This is another case in which it would be wise for the Prime Minister to inform himself.


William Cameron Edwards: Does that include any assembling of imported parts?


John Archibald Maharg: This is the total value
of the output of the cream separator manufacturing plants.


William Cameron Edwards: I think my hon. friend misunderstands me. I am asking for information. Does that output include anything for the assembling of imported parts, parts imported into the country and assembled here?


John Archibald Maharg: These figures are taken from statistics compiled by the Government, and I assume that they are correct. No separation is made between assembling and manufacturing. If assembling was done, it is included, I presume. The point is that, instead of four industries, we have seven, and instead of an output of $639,656, we have $2,030,093. That is the important feature of the situation.


William Cameron Edwards: Most of that is imported.


John Archibald Maharg: I would take it for
granted that the hon. gentleman would be able to distinguish between $600,000 odd and $2,000,000 odd, and that he would draw his conclusions as to which was the most important.
The Prime Minister undertook to give us quite a little discourse this afternoon on tin plates manufactured in the United States. Hie showed that there had been a tremendous increase, which is no doubt perfectly true. But he might have gone a

little further and given, us another illustration or two to show the great benefit that had come to the people of the United States through protection. They have now in the State of California, a plant for manufacturing borax. For a number of years the United States purchased all their borax. They had in that country no plants manufacturing this product. An agitation was commenced because of a borax discovery in the State of California. Prior to the time that this institution was established, the United States had purchased their borax for $50 a ton. This industry was started, and from that time on the United States paid $150 a ton for this article. If you can show to the people that protection has helped them in this case, then I fail to understand protection, if the people of the United States are benefited by having to pay $150 a ton for their borax when prior to the time that the protection was given to this industry they could purchase it for the sum of $50 a ton. I fail to see it. This is another illustration where only one-half of a story is told.
The Prime Minister referred to protection in Great Britain to-day. He told us that it would be only a matter of time until Great Britain would be a protectionist country; at least he used words to, that effect. In the Citizen of to-day and also in the Montreal Gazette of May 13, an article is published, and I want to read a few extracts from it. It is in connection with the banking interests of Great Britain and their attitude towards protection in England. It savs:	.
A manifesto signed by a score of leading bankers, was published here to-day, protesting against any legislative or administrative measures to check the free exchange of goods with foreign countries and declaring the policy of trying to exclude foreign commodities to be a mistaken one.
The following is, a quotation:
We cannot limit imports without limiting: our export trade, and striking a grave blow at world-wide commerce on which this Kingdom principally depends.	[DOT]
Further on it says:
We desire to enter a respectful protest against every restrictive regulation of trade which tends to diminish the resources of the State.
The signers include Lord Avebury, partner in Courts and Co,; Lord Chalmers, former joint secretary of the Treasury; Frederick C. Good-enough, chairman of Barclay's Bank, Limited; Sir Everard A. Hambro, a director of the Bank of England; Lord Inchcape, senior partner in Mackinnon, Mackenzie and Co.; the Right Hon. Frederick Huth Jackson, director of the Bank of England; Sir Robert Kindersley, director of
the Bank of England; Walter Leaf, chairman of the London County Westminster and Parr's Bank, and Reginald McKenna, director of the . London City and Midland Bank, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It goes on to say this action threatens to cripple the country's resources and impair its credit abroad. A further quotation from this manifesto is as follows:
We have to build up the markets we need by encouraging continental nations to export to us, for it is only by exports that they can reestablish their credits and provide funds for the payment of their debts.	,
I shall not burden the record with further quotations. I give these just to show that the hanking interests of Great Britain are alarmed at the possibility of the principle of protection being introduced into that country again.
When speaking of the twine industry I omitted to give the figures. As I said, when the Prime Minister was on his western tour he told the people in one of our cities how the twine industry had gone to pieces since it was placed on the free list. He stated that in 1890 practically 80 per cent of the twine used in Canada was of Canadian manufacture, while at the present time the amount of twine supplied by Canadian manufacturers was only 25 per cent of the total consumption in Canada. The Prime Minister undertook to give us a little history of the twine industry this afternoon, but he forgot to give us the figures as well. In 1890 the total value of the output was 1,723,534: in 1900, $2,212,263. There is a gradual increase in 1910, 1915, 1917, and up until 1919, the latest year for which reports are available from the Statistical Branch here in Ottawa, and the total value in, that year is $9,810,449. That does not look as though there had been much of a decrease. The increase in output would figure out at a very high percentage.
I wish now to direct attention for a few moments to the Budget. My first observation would be that I am of the opinion that the Finance Minister has been possibly a little too courageous and has gone just a little too far. I think you will find that this Budget will be more than protective; I am of opinion that it will he prohibitive in some respects, and possibly in many respects. However, I shall not quarrel with the Minister of Finance if it does prohibit some of the things that are heavily taxed in the Budget, for there are some things that we can get along very nicely without, particularly beverages, and drugs containing a very high percentage of alcohol.
<5366

If he can shut these out, I will have no fault to find with him. But with respect to some other items, I am afraid that the Budget will act detrimentally, because of its prohibitive nature. I shall not dwell on that particular point at this time, but I would like to give to the House my opinion as to the point we have reached in this matter of protection.
My own candid opinion is that protection has reached the point where it does not protect; where it does not give employment, and also the point where it does not prevent the goods that are taxed from entering this country. We have only to dwell for a very short time on our trade relations with one of the countries with whom we do the largest 'business, and that is the United States. We are one of her best customers, and she is one of ours. To prove that protection does not protect, there is at the present time on certain commodities, in fact on everything that we import from the United States, a protection. I imagine that some hon. members will say that that is not so, that a great many articles are on the free list. That is quite true, but we have an adverse rate of exchange which operates exactly the same as does a protective tariff. This adverse exchange operates on every article we import from the United States, and it has run as high as 19 per cent, but on the average has been between 14 and 15 per cent, I would say. If we add that amount to the protective tariff, which we have every right to do, as it operates exactly the same, we shall find that we have all the way from 25 to 50 per cent of a protection against goods coming in from the United States., Now our exports from the United States last year, I think, must prove conclusively that protection does not protect. What the reason is, it is difficult to know; it has 'been ascribed to several different causes. However, the fact remains that the tariff does not protect although we have as high as 50 per cent of a duty to contend with in some cases, and that is operating continuously. The other evening while the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was speaking, he addressed a question to this corner of the House to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), I believe. He asked where would we get the necessary revenue if we reduced the tariff. I think I would be quite in order if I were to answer the hon. gentleman if he were in the House by asking another question: Where would the revenue come from if we followed the ad-
vice of the Government and its supporters and bought our goods in Canada, and not from the United States? They tell us we can secure practically everything in our own country. Well, if we did not import from the United States, where would the revenue come from? We imported from the United States goods last year to the amount of $856,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite, in support of their argument that they have reduced the tariff since they came into power, stated (that the average tariff on dutiable and free goods was now 16.5 per cent. I take it that that is correct. Now if you collect 16.5 per cent on all the imports from the United States, you will find you have approximately $140,000,000. Our total revenue received from the tariff last year was $165,000,000. Now where would your revenue come from if you did not import those goods? You would have reduced younr revenue from tariff to about $25,000,000. I think the $856,000,000 of goods imported from the United States under these adverse conditions-the duty and the exchange rate-proves conclusively that we have reached a point where protection does not protect. There must be something wrong somewhere. Another argument they have given us for not doing business with the United States is that it will improve the adverse rate of exchange. They told us that the one and only cause for the adverse exchange rate with the United States was our adverse balance of trade with them. That argument has been heralded all over the country and was mqde use' of throughout Western Canada when the Prime Minister was touring that part of the Dominion. Now, I desire to investigate this adverse balance of trade for a few years back so that we may find out just what the facts are. Let me state the facts in the following table. In order to save time, I shall give the figures in round numbers:
Exports 1913-14	
Imports 1913-14	
Adverse balance of trade.. ..
Exports 1914-15	
Imports 1914-15	
Adverse balance of trade.. ..
Exports 1915-16	
Imports 1915-16	
Adverse balance of trade.. ..
Exports 1916-17	
Imports 1916-17	
Adverse balance of trade.. ..

395.000.	000
219.000.	000
or 55 per cent
186.000.	000
296.000.	000
110.000.	000
or 37 per cent 216,000,000 370 000,000
154.000.	000
or 42 per cent
290.000.	000
664.000.	000
374.000.	000
or 129 per cent

Exports 1917-18	 440,000,000
Imports 1917-18	 791,000,000
Adverse balance	of	trade..	..	351,000,000
or 45 per cent
Exports 1918-19	 447,000,000
Imports 1918-19	 746,000,000
Adverse balance	of	trade..	..	269,000,000
or 36 per cent
Exports 1919-20	 501,000,000
Imports 1919-20	 801,000,000
Adverse balance	of	trade..	,.	300,000,000
' or 38 per cent
Exports 1920-21	 574,000,000
Imports 1920-21	  856,000,000
Adverse balance	of	trade..	..	282,000,000
or 34 per cent
It will be seen very clearly from this statement that the year in which we had an adverse exchange rate is the year that we had the very lowest (percentage of imports ever exports, and that must surely prove to the House that the argument that has been advanced by the Government and their supporters is absolutely fallacious. As we see here, in one year the percentage of imports over exports was 129 per cent, yet we had no adverse exchange rate against us then. I think the Government will need to look around for some further reason to advance for the adverse exchange which we have against us at the present time.
During last February I had occasion to visit a merchant in Western Canada, and we engaged in conversation as to the cost of textiles. At that particular time they were making inquiry for their supply of textiles for the coming year, and I asked him what the prospects were for his securing his textile requirements in Canada. He showed me his figures and allowed me to make the comparisons for myself, and those figures and his statements showed that he could go into the United States and purchase his textiles there, pay the adverse exchange rate, pay the duty on textiles, which ranges from 14 to 35 per cent, pay exchange and freight to his home town, and then undersell the Dominion textile manufacturers' price by 20 per cent. It is no wonder, Sir, that American goods are coming into our country, if that is the state of affairs that exists. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), speaking on the Budget a few days ago, stated that it was impossible for us to escape the burdens of war. With this I quite agree, and I do not think that any one has any thought of attempting to escape those burdens at this time. Certainly we had no thought of escaping the burdens of and responsibilities of war when war was on. With the sentiment expressed by the minister I agree fully.
But my complaint is that while the burdens of war were being placed on the shoulders of the people, that was the time we should have taken steps to relieve them as far as possible on the financial side. At that time we advocated to the then Minister of Finance the imposition of direct taxation, but our advice was not accepted. However, since the close of the war, and now that unemployment is rife throughout the country, as it has been for the last two years, the Government, in view of the unfavourable conditions that exist, finds itself compelled to impose such taxation. It has been stated publicly that we have some 200,000 unemployed men in the country, to say nothing of the 11 p.m. unemployed female labour which we have. To my mind, it would have been much better had the Minister of Finance at that time, when everybody was busy in the country and had plenty of money, introduced direct taxation in some form or other. But it was only when the grim necessities of war confronted him that he was compelled to do so. Now, this is one of the planks in our platform which the hon. member undertook to quote from to-night. He did not go very far with it, however. He just used sufficient of it to serve his purpose, ajid I shall touch upon that a little later. But in that platform, if the hon. member had read it to the House, he would have found that the very methods which the Minister of Finance very reluctantly put into operation were advocated. Several of the things advocated in that platform the Government have had to do because of the grim necessities of war; and I contend that the grim necessity of economy will force whatever Government may be _ in power in the near future to go on accepting the provisions of that platform, if we are to escape bankruptcy. I should have liked the hon. gentleman to have gone a little further into the platform while h ewas reading it. He gave two quotations to prove to the House that it was a free trade platform. What were they? They were these: He said the platform proposed an all round and substantial reduction in the tariff, and that it advocated free trade. That was one of his arguments. His other argument was that the platform stated we should gradually increase the British preference until within five years we would have complete free trade with England. Now, Sir, these are the two arguments he advanced in support of his statement that the platform in question was a free trade platform. I leave it to the House and the

country to judge just to what extent the hon. gentleman succeeded in proving his contention. I would have liked him to have gone on and told what that platform proposes to do for the consumers of this country, but the hon. gentleman took very good care not to refer to that point. He did not state to the consumers of this country that that platform proposed to give them a free market in which to buy all their foodstuffs, and he was not particularly anxious that they should know that. That might suit the consumers possibly, but that is not what the Government wants. My hon. friend might have gone a little further and found additional arguments along that line. However I will not dwell any longer on the subject at this particular time.
Now let me return to some of the statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster). He gave us certain reasons for not reducing the tariff at this particular time, but the same reasons have been brought forward for a number of years past. I remember very well that the first reason advanced for delay in this matter was that demobilization was in progress-that we must not interfere with matters of trade while demobilization was going on. Time passed and the "existing unrest" was cited as a reason for making the excuse a little stronger. Then later on the Minister of Agriculture, who comes from the western coast, stated that we must have protection to preserve us from the competition of cheap Oriental labour. Now, Sir, during the by-election which followed the acceptance of a portfolio by the Minister of Agriculture promises were made with respect to providing a dry dock at the Pacific coast which, it seems to me, created a most ridiculous situation. On the one hand we have a tariff which is designed to prevent imports from coming into that port which is to have the dry dock, and on the other hand the dry dock itself, is intended for the repair of the ships that presumably-if the policy of the Government and its supporters was carried out- would come in empty. It seems very inconsistent to spend millions of dollars in building a dry dock to accommodate shipping, and on the other hand enforcing a tariff which will prevent those ships from finding any business.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Some Government.


John Archibald Maharg: This year another
excuse has been advanced for the failure TMr. Maharg.]
to enter upon tariff revision and that is the Fordney Bill-that was one of the excuses presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day. He declared that the Fordney Bill is now before Congress, and we should not interfere with the tariff in this country until we know what is to be done with that measure. The statement is made that we must not trade with our neighbours to the south. If we are not to trade with the Americans why worry about the Fordney Bill? If we are not going to import goods from the United States, we certainly cannot expect to send exports to that country, and therefore we need entertain no apprehensions on the score of the Fordney Bill. But, Sir, the Fordney Bill is only an emergency measure; it is not intended to be permanent legislation. It is admittedly legislation intended to meet a condition which- prevails in the United States at the present time.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to our interchange of wheat with the United States, and I believe he made the remark in Montreal that the United States consumer would have to pay the duty and1 not the Canadian people. That is perfectly true, and it is an admission that I scarcely expected to get from him. However, if I remember correctly, he discussed the matter a little further and referred to our wheat being milled in bond over there to escape the tariff, as though that were something new. Now, Mr. Speaker, up to the1 time that we had free interchange of wheat and wheat products with the United States our wheat was being continuously shipped to that country and milled in bond there. To put the matter plainly camouflage has been resorted to in connection with this matter; and the agitation raised in the United States at the present time in connection with this privilege of milling wheat in bond is only for the purpose of beclouding the issue. It is only intended as a palliative to the consumers of that country in the effort of trying to make them believe, by roundabout means, that what is proposed will not increase the price of their bread. Personally, I doubt very much whether the consumers of the United States will permit themselves to be led astray by any such argument. The big financiers and the milling interests over there know very well that they have got to have Canadian wheat. It does not matter what the United States tariff against Canadian wheat is, American millers have got to have Canadian wheat to blend with

their own, otherwise they cannot sell their flour on the world's markets. It is absolutely impossible for them to dispose of their flour unless sufficient Canadian hard wheat has been mixed with it so as to give it that quality that will permit of its finding a market. So that as regards wheat we do not need to worry very much. But wheat is only one of the products of Canada. I often wonder where the livestock man is going to land if the Fordney Bill goes into operation, because that legislation will make it very awkward for him to market his stock, especially when we consider the restrictions on the export of cattle to the Old Country. That legislation will likewise be a handicap to other producers as well as to livestock men. The argument has been advanced that if the Fordney Bill becomes effective we will have to enact retaliatory measures. I doubt very much whether any country benefits by resorting to such measures. The retaliatory principle is one that does not get you very far, and I am doubtful myself whether it will prove of very much benefit in the present instance. Sir, I am wondering what the excuse for not revising the tariff will be next year. We hear considerable these days, not about the Fordney Bill altogether, but respecting a gentleman who is, we are told, perfecting a system of manufacturing milk without the cow. Now I imagine that next year instead of the Fordney Bill being assigned as an excuse for maintaining the tariff at its present level, it will possibly be the prospect of "Fordney milk." Doubtless it would be a very serious thing if we were obliged to discard the meek and gentle old cow, and I have no doubt this Government will give that fact serious consideration in an attempt to use it as an excuse for retaining the present tariff.
The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Anderson) dealt with the value of the home market to the people of Canada. We have been told in the West that Eastern Canada furnishes a home market for our products. I would like to inquire for what class of products Eastern Canada provides a home market? Let us take the province of Ontario for the purpose of illustration. The two chief products from Western Canada that Ontario uses are wheat and oats. In Ontario they use the wheat for blending purposes to bring up the standard of their flour, and they use the oats for milling operations to prepare the different oatmeals. But, Sir, Ontario is a producer of wheat as well as Western Canada, and she produces annually anywhere from
twelve to fifteen million bushels. Now if you take the per capita consumption of the province of Ontario I venture to say that it will run between four and five bushels. That is considered a high consumption, and I doubt, in view of the fact that very1 many substitutes are produced in that province, whether the consulntpion will run to four bushels per head. However, we Will put it at four bushels per head, and we will take the population of the province as being between two and a half and three million-I believe that 2,600-*000 are about the right figures. But we will take it at two and a half millions of a population. At four bushels per capita that would mean 10,000,000 bushels. Now, you will see that they have a surplus of anywhere from 2,000,000 to
5,000,000 bushels, which will provide liberally for seed and other contingencies. So that in reality while in Ontario purchases a certain quantity of our hard wheat; she also has a surplus of her own wheat which takes the place of her purchases from Western Canada, whatever they may be. Therefore, in that case the market provided in Eastern Canada in so far as our western wheat is concerned is very very small indeed. There is a considerable amount of oats purchased from Western Canada for milling purposes, but on the other hand we are very often importers of oats from Ontario. Hundreds of thousands of bushels were imported a few years ago, and almost every year when there is a short crop of oats in the West we import from Ontario. So far as the home market for the produce of Western Canada is concerned, to all intents and purposes it does not exist.
But what about the market provided in Western Canada for the products of Eastern Canada? That is a very different matter. Western Canada does not produce the variety of articles produced in Eastern Canada, and practically all our requirements are purchased either in Eastern Canada and the country to the south or from overseas. But the fact remains that instead of the East furnishing a market for Western Canada the opposite is the case. As an illustration, take fresh fruits. Millions of dollars worth are imported into Western Canada, in addition to canned fruits and vegetables. Our fresh tomatoes are largely purchased from Eastern Canada. There is no manufacture of cheese worth speaking of anywhere in Western Canada, so that we have to buy practically all our cheese. We also get from the East all our leather goods,

machinery, tools of all kinds, binder twine, rope, furniture, barbed wire, clothing, boots and shoes, and a multitude of other articles, so that instead of Eastern Canada furnishing a market for the West, we are continuously purchasing from Eastern Canada. I have no fault whatever to find with this condition of affairs other than the misrepresentation that we are subjected to, and I think in all fairness both sides of the case should be presnted.
There are one or two matters that affect Western Canada particularly, and, incidentally, all Canada that I should like to refer to, and they have got to be regulated in some way or other, otherwise not only the prosperity of Western Canada but of the whole Dominion will be seriously interfered with. First, I refer to freight rates. Last fall a new schedule of freight rates was put into operation. Values of products in Western Canada were fairly good at that time and the increased rates did not seem so serious, but things have changed, and apart from wheat, which has retained a fair measure of the value that it had, other products of the West have reached a point where it is practically impossible to ship them any distance and receive any return. Now, this is a condition of affairs that cannot be permitted to continue if we are going to prosper not only in the West but in the East, as I do not think there is any doubt but that the prosperity of Eastern Canada depends on the prosperity of the West, and as the prosperity of the West increases so will the prosperity of the East keep pace with it.
Take oats as an illustration. At the present time it does not matter how close a man lives to the market, he may be in the province of Manitoba, but at the present prices paid for oats at the local point, after the shipper has paid his threshing bill and his freight to the head of the lakes in nine cases out of ten he has'a debit balance. But when you get farther west what is the condition? We have cases by the score of actual loss, and I want to give the House one particular case of a carload of oats shipped from Northern Alberta. When the freight and commission charges had been paid-in fact, the commission charges had not been paid-a debit account was received by the shipper of those oats for $38 and some cents. In other words, he had $38 less than nothing for his carload of oats shipped from Northern Alberta. This, of course, is an extreme case, but neverthe-
less it is an indication of what we can exipect in so far as the effect of freight rates upon Western Canada is concerned. Take livestock, at the present time the ranchers are laying their plans on the basis of $4 beef next fall. Now, Sir, if any one thinks that under the present high cost of production in the West the ranchers can hope to break even on a price of $4 per hundred for their beef, well, Sir, he will have to figure it out again, for it will be an absolute impossibility. Then, take hides, I know of a case that happened a few months ago, in fact, I was in the office of a large hide concern in our own city to whom had been shipped a first-class hide from a point only about forty miles from the city of Moosejaw, and the' actual net return that was being sent to the shipper was forty cents.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was lucky.


John Archibald Maharg: Yes. He was a lot luckier than some others who did not get any return. I merely mention these few instances to show what we can expect unless something is done to reduce freight rates on our railroads.
But those are not the only rates that require attention, and I have a suggestion or two to make to the Government tonight which I hope they will act on. For a number of years the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) has brought before this House a Bill to place the shipping on our inland waters under the control of our Railway Commission. Year after year he has introduced that Bill with a persistency that only he is capable of, but it has been repeatedly defeated. However, he is not daunted yet, and he is going to keep at it, and eventually, unless some other measure is adopted, his Bill will be accepted by this House. At the present time an inquiry is being held in the Senate through a committee appointed to inquire into the question of why so large a quantity of our western grain goes through American ports.
I will give you one reason why. They do not need to hold an inquiry there; they do not need to summon anyone to appear before them. All they need to do is to get the figures as to the lake freights charged, and they will have the answer. We have been endeavouring to bring the lake shipping under the control of the Railway Board, but we have been unable to do that. There is only one way in which the Government can accomplish this purpose without doing that, and it is by abolish-

ing our coastal laws so far as inland shipping is concerned. I was talking to a prominent gentleman the other day when I was it. Montreal with other hon. members, and the question came up why a greater proportion of our products were not shipped through the port of Montreal. I do not wish to mention names; the gentleman to whom I put the question has probably moire to do than any other man with the regulating of the port of Montreal. I inquired whether it was a matter of facilities or of rates on [DOT]the lakes, and the answer was that it was almost entirely a question of rates. The freight rate from the head of the lakes to the Georgian bay ports is almost invariably as high as the rate from the head of .the lakes to Buffalo, almost double the distance. If you examine the map of Canada you will see what a circuitous route the grain has to take after it leaves the Georgian bay ports before it gets to Buffalo.
NoVv, there is the reason. The grain from Georgian bay ports has either to come around the lakes to Montreal in small boats or has to pay the overland freight haul. The grain is lahded in Buffalo as cheaply as it is landed in the Georgian bay ports. I say that the only way to remedy that condition-that is, if the shipping on the lakes is not to be brought under the
Railway Commission

is to abolish our
coastal laws. Under our coastal shipping regulations a vessel loading at a Canadian port must unload at an American port, and vice versa, consequently our vessels going to the head of the lakes to take their load on at Canadian ports cannot unload at Buffalo; they must go to Georgian bay ports or. other Canadian ports. The result is that the rates to the Georgian bay ports are pratically the same as the rates to Buffalo, practically twice the distance. American boats carry tremendous quantities of our grain, and whether they wish it or not they have to unload at American ports and the result is that they go on to Buffalo. There argument is this-and there is something in it-that they get a full return cargo from Buffalo which they cannot get from the Georgian bay ports. But why should we permit that condition to continue when it is so detrimental to our own interests? We have one of the finest ports for grain handling in the world. I think I have visited most of the shipping points in the United States, and I can say that they have nothing to equal Montreal. Why, New York is antediluvian compared with Montreal in the handling of grain.
At the port of Montreal -the grain can be conveyed for many miles. I do not know how many miles of belting they have now, but several years ago they had over four miles of overhead belting which enabled them to run the grain almost over the whole harbour and load it in boats almost anywhere at that port. They have not those facilities at United States ports on the Atlantic coast to the same extent. The only reason why so much of our grain can be handled at United States ports is because they have so many of them-Portland, Newport News, New York, Philadelphia, and so on. If all our grain had to go through New York, they simply could not handle it. Why, I ask, should we permit this condition to exist, when it is practically threatening the prosperity of our country? Something must be done at once to prevent these people from jumping their rates in the way they have done. It is not only the farmers of the West who are affected by this condition; the consumers of Eastern Canada are equally affected, because they have to pay their share as there is the long haul both ways. Why, then, should the consumers of this country have to pay double price for having their products carried across the lake? What excuse can there be for allowing this condition to prevail? In 1920 the rates on wheat from the head of the Lakes were practically double what they were in 1919. The sooner the Government takes this matter into consideration the better it will be for everybody concerned. It is true that the crop is only now being sown, but in a matter of three or four months it will be harvested and on its way again. Consequently if any action is to be taken in this matter it should be taken very soon, otherwise the purchasing power of Western Canada will be very limited-and we know what that means. We had a very severe lesson in that regard in 1913 and 1914, just as we have had this year. In 1913-14 the crops in Western Canada were very light, and everything became stagnant. This is not an after-war condition; we had it prior to the war. I make this statement that had we had the freight rates to pay in 1914 that we have to pay now, the condition would have been much more serious than it was; the purchasing power of the West would have been almost entirely eliminated. Unless we can remedy this condition in some way we cannot expect the purchasing power of Western Canada to be very great; indeed, it will be so re-

stricted that the effect will be very serious upon the industries of the East. Up to the time of the drop in wheat in Western Canada business was flourishing all over the country, hut it was only a matter of three or four weeks after that drop in price that those industries were curtailing their output, employees were being laid off, and eventually some of them were closed down. The reason for that can very clearly be traced to the loss of purchasing power in Western Canada.
Statements have appeared in the press recently with regard to the closing down of implement manufacturing concerns. Well, there is a reason for that. The farmers of the West have been, purchasing only what it was absolutely necessary for them to purchase-and by the way, I have a little criticism to offer against the manufacturers of farm implements in Eastern Canada; perhaps it applies to others as well. -Why should they refuse to accept their share of the loss occasioned by the reduced value of goods? Everybody else has had to do it; the farmers of Western Canada have had to do it. In fact, the western farmers are to-day accepting a loss of about 500 per cent in many cases by reason of the drop in prices. But what do we find? We find that, on' the other hand, if we go to buy implements in the West, they have been increased in price all the way from 10 to 20 per cent. Why should the manufacturers not be prepared to accept a portion of this loss? They will accept it eventually; they are accepting it now, because their warehouses throughout the country are piled to the roof with implements, and there is an overhead charge going on which they will have to stand whether they wish to do so or not. It would have been good business for them to accept their share of the loss instead of increasing their price. I am not speaking from hearsay in regard to increases in price, because I had a personal illustration of this in the month of February before I came here for the session. I required an implement, and I called up a large distributing firm in the city of Moose Jaw which distribute everything in the line of farm implements. I asked the manager for a price on this special article, and he quoted a price to me, but he said:	"Wait a minute; I do
not know whether this has advanced in price or not; if it has not advanced, it is the only article that we sell that has not advanced in price from 10 to 20 per cent." He looked up his invoices, and he said that

this particular article had not advanced, but that it was the only implement which they sold that had not advanced from 10 to 20 per cent. Their argument-and there is something to it, I suppose-is that the trade purchase their requirements of raw materials one year ahead. But they say that they have always been doing that, so that evidently they must have secured the advantage of the increase in the price of raw materials when they were advancing, because we know very well that implements advanced very rapidly until at the present time an article that we used to buy for $80 to $85 is costing us $220, $225, or $230 now. We used to be able to buy binders for $145 to $150; last year we paid $289 cash for them, and this year , we shall have to pay $339 for them. How long can we continue in this business if this is the way in which things are going to increase in price? I bring these matters to the attention of the Government and of the people of Eastern Canada to show that any measures that tend to increase cost of production in Western Canada must react on Eastern Canada as well. It is impossible to escape that result, and unless the fullest co-operation is given in order to reduce the cost of production, I do not know just how it is going to be done and it certainly will not be done by increasing the cost of importations.
If I might be permitted to make a further reference to the Budget, the statement has been made that it is not a people's Budget; that it is a Budget for the manufacturing industry. I should like to draw the attention of the House to one item in the Budget, and to me it can be nothing more nor less than an attempt to compel everybody to use the middleman, as it were. Where goods are imported by wholesalers or others, the total tax that they will have to pay-the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will correct me if I am not right-is 3 per cent; but if a retailer or an individual or a group of individuals undertake to reduce the cost of living by purchasing his or their own requirements and importing them, the tax is 4 per cent. I do not know just what the argument is.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: If the hon.
gentleman would like the exact rate, the tax to the manufacturer and the jobber on the local sale is 1J per cent; the tax to the jobber on the imported article is 2i per cent; the tax on the local sale from the manufacturer to the retailer is 3 per cent, and the tax on the sale from the

importer to the retailer is 3 per cent. It does not make any'difference in the cost whether it is imported by the retailer direct or whether it is imported through the jobber.


John Archibald Maharg: Why has the retailer, if he imports direct, to pay 4 per cent?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman does not get the point. The taxation on the article in Canada is 3 per cent. It makes no difference whether it goes direct or whether it goes through the middleman. The taxation on the article imported, by reason of the fact that the raw material entering into the article has not paid a sales tax, is 4 fpef cent. In any case, it does not make any difference whether the article is imported directly or indirectly, the tax is the same.


John Archibald Maharg: I fail to see the point in the minister's argument, for it states very clearly in Hansard that when a retailer or an individual imports, he has to pay 4 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is right.


John Archibald Maharg: But if he purchases
from a wholesaler, he pays only 3 per cent. If I can read the figures, that is the way in which the thing works out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the article goes to the wholesaler, the tax is 21 per cent. If the wholesaler turns around and sells, as he .must, to the retailer, the tax to the retailer is 11 per cent. Two and a half per cent and one and a half per cent, the hon. gentleman sees, make four.


John Archibald Maharg: What is the object of imposing a tax of 11 per cent on the jobber when an article is sold to him? You are compelling the wholesaler to buy from the jobber and the retailer to buy from the wholesaler.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. The
terms "wholesaler" and "jobber" are used interchangeably. There are only the two sets of taxes in this case-to the manufacturer and to the wholesaler or jobber as the case may be.


John Archibald Maharg: I fail to see the point. In the one instance the retailer pays only 3 per cent, and in the other he pays, according to the minister's admission, 4 per cent. The minister shakes his head, but 3 and 4 are two distinct and different figures and that is what is in the resolution.
One other question, that I wish to bring to the attention of the House to-night and which affects Western Canada very seriously, is the railway situatioft in certain sections of the country. We have had the question of immigration before the House on two or three different occasions. We spent a good deal of time, and we are spending a great deal of money in connection with it; but as regards Western Canada, the sum total of your efforts will amount to nil unless something is done.
' The other day the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) gave some figures to show that, instead of increasing our population through immigration, we were losing it as far as the United States were concerned. That condition is more acute today than it was at the time those figures, were compiled. We have in the West large areas where people have to draw their products anywhere from 40 to 60 miles over a country that is almost impassable. Rivers and streams have to be forded, and sand hills and other obstacles have to be surmounted in order that they may deliver their products to the market. We have in the Estimates in the neighbourhood of $800,000 for canals. When that Estimate was before the House, I said a few words in connection with it, and I intimated that a portion of that could very profitably be used, instead of in canals that would give us no immediate benefit whatever, and which could give us benefit only by the expenditure of hundreds of millions more, in the extension of branch lines in Western Canada. One of the reasons which the minister gave us was that we had to spend this money in order to save a monetary loss; that the works would crumble and decay if this money was not expended. That is a serious matter; but we have a greater and much more important loss going on continuously in Western Canada as a result of lack of railway communication into those several districts and that is this. We are losing our settlers continually from day to day. I have scores of letters to that effect from southwestern Saskatchewan and the conditions throughout the southern portion of Saskatchewan are similar. People are leaving the country by the score; there is not a district where people are not moving out, and the reason is because they can get no satisfaction whatever as to any prospect of relief in the shape of railroad facilities. But that is not the worst feature. There is a loss of life continually; there is a lack of edu-



[Stage Direction]
cation continually. You cannot expect school teachers to isolate themselves miles away from a railroad. Many of them are doing it, but there are many districts where school teachers cannot be secured. The parents of the children will stand these conditions for a time, but eventually they will move out, for the welfare of their children is much more to them than any monetary consideration. We have also in that country a lack of medical attendance. Doctors are miles away, and in some districts days away, from cases where they are wanted. The situation simply has to he dealt with, or it will become more and more serious every day. Why should we be spending all this money in Eastern Canada on canals, docks, harbours, and such like, when we are not spending a dollar to give relief to these people? The situation is such that unless some assurance of relief is given to these people you may as well stop your immigration so far as Western Canada is concerned. Further immigration would only increase the difficulty. You cannot secure land near the railways unless you have the money to purchase at a high price; you have to go to portions far distant from a railway. If money was spent in providing relief for these people in Western Canada, instead of spending these immense sums on works in the East which are not necessary at the present time, and which can only be available for use with the expenditure of hundreds of millions more, the results to Canada would be much more beneficial. It would be better to shut off immigration work altogether and use the hundreds of thousands of dollars you are spending on it to provide for the people you have here at the present time. I remember when the Prime Minister was in charge of the soldier settlement Bill, I made the statement that it was much better to hold in the country the returned men who had an interest in the country, than it was to assist those who had no such interest in the country. I said that it was all very well to assist them all, but a distinction should not be drawn between the two.
We are not only losing people from this country, but the infant mortality rate in the West is also very serious. Taking these two factors into consideration-the people who are moving out from day to day, and the high infant mortality rate- I am of the opinion that they will offset your immigration unless something is done to relieve the situation, and the last state will be worse than the first.

The expenditure on the Trent Valley canal was referred to by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) a day or so ago. He stated that this work was absolutely unnecessary at this time and that there was absolutely nothing to be gained by going on with it and spending the sum of $300,000. I could draw a nice picture of a tourist trade growing up along the Trent canal, and also of conditions in the West, that would furnish food for thought, and would be very illuminating, but I shall not take the time now.
With regard to the Welland canal, the Minister of Railways attempted to show to the House the other day that it had been of great benefit to the West in the reduction of freight rates, but he had to go back some thirty years to make his comparison. I would like to know how much wheat was shipped from Western Canada and went through the port of Montreal thirty years ago. I have been in the West over thirty years, and there was a very small amount being shipped out at that time. We did not have the railway system then that we have now, otherwise we would not have had to pay the rates that the minister claimed had to be paid in bringing the grain across the lakes. He stated that we had paid 20 cents a bushel thirty years ago for bringing grain from the head of the lakes to Montreal. At the present time the rail rates from the head of the lakes to Montreal is only 25 cents a bushel, and that is after we have had practically 100 per cent of an increase in the rates. We have had an increase of 15 per cent, another of 25 per cent, and another of 35 per cent. That goes to show that we have not received the benefit from the Welland canal that the minister would have us believe, and that the minister's figures were very misleading to the House. However, $500,000 has been voted for the Welland canal. I think that at least a portion of that money could have very well been spent in Western Canada, and I am sure it would have given much better results.
I have already detained the House too long. As a final word I would say to the Government that the situation in Western Canada demands serious consideration at the hands of the Government, and unless they have the interests of Canada as a whole at heart, and have a kindly feeling for our people, I can assure them that they wilf find the progress in Western Canada will be very, very slow. I make this statement, that the fewer immigrants you bring

into Canada under present conditions, the better off Canada will be for some years to come.
On the motion of Mr. Cowan (Regina) the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
Saturday, May 14, 1921.